Book I, Page 863 February 20, 2007 The Marion County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session in Commission chambers at 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at the Marion County Governmental Complex located in Ocala, Florida. The meeting opened with invocation by Chairman McClain and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of Our Country. Upon roll call the following members were present: Chairman Stan McClain, District 3; Vice-Chairman Charlie Stone, District 5; Commissioner Andy Kesselring, District 1; Commissioner Jim Payton, District 2; and Commissioner Barbara Fitos, District 4. Also present were Clerk David R. Ellspermann, Deputy Clerks Melissa Smith and Cindy Bonvissuto, County Attorney Thomas L. Wright, County Administrator Pat Howard, a representative of the Sheriff’s Office and a member of the news media. Proclamations/Projects & Programs - (1.A.) - Upon motion of Commissioner Stone, seconded by Commissioner Kesselring, the Board approved the Proclamation designating the week of February 18, through 24, 2007 as “Engineers Week”. The Proclamation was presented to County Engineer Mounir Bouyounes, Transportation Department, Paolo Mastroserio, Florida Engineering Society Local Forest Chapter President and Solid Waste Director Ken Whitehead. Projects & Programs - Don Browning, SE 158 th Lane, stated the Lake Weir Kiwanis Club was a conduit for raising money and wanted it donated back into the community to help children. George Albright, PO Box 725, Ocklawaha, introduced Aggie Albright, President of the Lake Weir Kiwanis Club. He stated the Kiwanis Club had been active in the local area for over 50 years. Mr. Albright stated the Club almost met its match of raising over $100,000 for Central Florida Community College (CFCC) for scholarships in perpetuity for graduating children of the Lake Weir area. Mr. Browning presented a check to Dr. Archibald for challenged readers. He presented a check to Suzanne McGuire, Homeless Children liaison with the Marion County Public Schools. Mr. Browning presented a check to Don Zaharias, Stanton-Weirsdale Elementary School. Projects & Programs - (2.A.) - Karla Grimsley, SE 54 th Avenue, Circuit Director, Fifth Circuit Guardian Ad Litem Program, appeared and gave a brief Status Report presentation. She commented on what had been accomplished with the Boards support and the increased budget which had allowed for additional staff to accommodate needs. Ms. Grimsley presented a brochure regarding the Florida Guardian Ad Litem Program and a single page entitled, “Guardian ad Litem Program Growth” and gave a brief history of the program. She stated with the present staff the program was operating at approximately 75% representation. Chairman McClain expressed appreciation for all efforts provided by Ms. Grimsley
Transcript
Book I, Page 863
February 20, 2007
The Marion County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session inCommission chambers at 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at the Marion CountyGovernmental Complex located in Ocala, Florida.
The meeting opened with invocation by Chairman McClain and the Pledge ofAllegiance to the Flag of Our Country.
Upon roll call the following members were present: Chairman Stan McClain, District3; Vice-Chairman Charlie Stone, District 5; Commissioner Andy Kesselring, District 1;Commissioner Jim Payton, District 2; and Commissioner Barbara Fitos, District 4. Alsopresent were Clerk David R. Ellspermann, Deputy Clerks Melissa Smith and CindyBonvissuto, County Attorney Thomas L. Wright, County Administrator Pat Howard, arepresentative of the Sheriff’s Office and a member of the news media.
Proclamations/Projects & Programs - (1.A.) - Upon motion of Commissioner Stone,seconded by Commissioner Kesselring, the Board approved the Proclamation designatingthe week of February 18, through 24, 2007 as “Engineers Week”.
The Proclamation was presented to County Engineer Mounir Bouyounes,Transportation Department, Paolo Mastroserio, Florida Engineering Society Local ForestChapter President and Solid Waste Director Ken Whitehead.
Projects & Programs - Don Browning, SE 158th Lane, stated the Lake Weir KiwanisClub was a conduit for raising money and wanted it donated back into the community tohelp children.
George Albright, PO Box 725, Ocklawaha, introduced Aggie Albright, President ofthe Lake Weir Kiwanis Club. He stated the Kiwanis Club had been active in the local areafor over 50 years. Mr. Albright stated the Club almost met its match of raising over$100,000 for Central Florida Community College (CFCC) for scholarships in perpetuity forgraduating children of the Lake Weir area.
Mr. Browning presented a check to Dr. Archibald for challenged readers. Hepresented a check to Suzanne McGuire, Homeless Children liaison with the Marion CountyPublic Schools. Mr. Browning presented a check to Don Zaharias, Stanton-WeirsdaleElementary School.
Projects & Programs - (2.A.) - Karla Grimsley, SE 54th Avenue, Circuit Director, FifthCircuit Guardian Ad Litem Program, appeared and gave a brief Status Report presentation.She commented on what had been accomplished with the Boards support and theincreased budget which had allowed for additional staff to accommodate needs. Ms.Grimsley presented a brochure regarding the Florida Guardian Ad Litem Program and asingle page entitled, “Guardian ad Litem Program Growth” and gave a brief history of theprogram. She stated with the present staff the program was operating at approximately75% representation.
Chairman McClain expressed appreciation for all efforts provided by Ms. Grimsley
February 20, 2007
Page 864, Book I
and staff. He stated the Board would figure out how to continue supporting the program.
Resolutions/Subdivisions - (2.B.) - Alex C. Helton, Jr., SE 29th Avenue, appearedand requested the Board to reconsider action taken on February 6, 2007 to deny a platvacation for Becket Plantation. He stated the Development Review Committee (DRC) wasunaware he was residing on the property and had been for the past three years. ChairmanMcClain stated he was also unaware Mr. Helton was residing on the property andquestioned if there was a site built home on the land.
Zoning Director Mike May stated he too was unaware Mr. Helton was residing onthe property and noted the owners were allowed a guest house. In response toCommissioner Stone, Mr. Helton advised that the property was approximately 3.18 acresin size.
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by Commissioner Stone,to reconsider previous action. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Commissioner Kesselring stated the Boards option was to proceed and let Mr.Helton continue to live on the property as a guest resident, noting all issues would beresolved. Commissioner Payton questioned if staff was aware the mobile home had beenerected at the time of the DRC’s decision. Planning Director Ganoe stated he was unsureif staff was aware, but noted he did not think it would have made a difference in DRC’sdecision. In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. Helton advised that he had a separateseptic tank, but shared the same well with his parents.
Commissioner Stone suggested waiting until later in the meeting when familydivision concept was discussed with another agenda item. Chairman McClain stated hewas not in favor of allowing the split on the property and suggested it would set a badprecedence. He stated there was a tremendous problem in the County with property beingmarketed to be divided several times through family division.
In response to Commissioner Fitos, Mr. May advised that the guest house had tostay smaller than the primary residence. In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. Heltonstated he had no road frontage, but did have his own separate driveway.
Commissioner Kesselring questioned if it was the applicants that made thedetermination of what was considered the primary residence and the guest house. Mr. Maystated the primary residence would be the larger of the two.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,to deny the plat vacation in Becket Plantation and uphold the previous decision. The motionwas unanimously approved by the Board.
Budgets/Ordinances - (2.C.) - It was noted for the record that Patricia Mannonewould be rescheduled in relation to a waiver of interest accrued on Code Enforcement Lienagainst Tracy-Ann George in regard to Case No. 394758JB.
Roads, Miscellaneous/Municipalities - (2.D.) - Dale Danielsen, SE 39th Street,appeared and commented on Lake Weir Drive. He questioned when the work would beconducted to repair the road. Commissioner Kesselring stated it was a City road in whichthere was an agreement for the City to make the improvements, noting the design wascompleted and construction was suppose to start within the next couple years.
Preserve, appeared and commented on Florida Water with the assistance of Del Webb thatsold the Del Webb water usage to Marion County Utilities. She noted that Spruce Creekhad a contract until October 1, 2008 that included price protection. Ms. Brown stated afterresearch through Tallahassee, she was informed that if it was a County water system therewas no State oversight. She expressed concern with local government protecting itself. Ms.Brown suggested an outside audit be performed. She praised the Board for itscommendable job and efforts with the 50 year study. Chairman McClain advised that hehad some of the same concerns. He stated the oversight responsibility for utilities was thatof the Commission. Chairman McClain stated he believed local government should operatelocal issues and not be regulated by the State. He stated there were numerous regulationspassed down to the County from the State that had to be met with the utilities. ChairmanMcClain advised that the Board operated within the Sunshine Laws, noting eachCommissioner was very cognizant and careful as to how each operated on the Board. Hestated the reason the Board had become more proactive about how the UtilitiesDepartment would be funded, grow and expand was because Marion County had thequantity of water, but needed to be concerned with the quality. Chairman McClain notedthe Board was trying to be aggressive with the level of treatment that would be offered withthe new plants being added. He advised that there was a deficit within utilities wherecustomers were subsidized on the water system, noting new customers were paying amuch higher rate than a considerable amount of older customers.
Ms. Brown stated it was hard to compute a rate since each months bills varied sodrastically, noting the number of days billed was always different. She stated there weremany variables to consider when the bills were computed. Chairman McClain stated theBoard was working to resolve the issues, noting the rate structure and long range plan werebeing researched and addressed.
Chairman McClain noted the Utilities Department had management problems in thepast, but did not believe any funds were misappropriated. He stated taxpayers requestedverification of where funds were expended and thought it was important for them to know.
Comprehensive Plan - (2.D.) - Shawn Doherty, SW 16th Avenue, appeared andcommented on the future Comprehensive Land Use where he resided. He stated it was socongested in the area that it should no longer be zoned as Agriculture. Mr. Dohertysuggested staff review the area and consider it for future utilization as specialized land use.
Commissioner Kesselring noted there was an area study in process and suggestedMr. Doherty contact the Planning Department to convey his thoughts and provide them withthe information given today. He advised that there would be additional public hearings inthe future regarding the issue in which a plan would be formulated and urged Mr. Dohertyto attend to voice his opinions.
Resolutions/Utilities/Zoning - (2.D.) - Belinda Thompson, SE 84th Avenue, appearedand advised of an upcoming meeting with the St. Johns River Water Management District(SJRWMD) staff should attend regarding protecting the aquifer, Springs and wells thatprovided water to the City of Belleview. She expressed concern with the C & K Sand Minedisposing of construction debris into the ground and requested consideration in changingthe Special Use Permit Resolution. Ms. Thompson presented several photographsdepicting disposal of construction debris. She expressed concern with flooding on herproperty due to the location of the berm as well as contaminants that may be seeping into
February 20, 2007
Page 866, Book I
the soil and water.
Resolutions/Utilities/Zoning - (2.D.) - Ted Kirk, SE County Road 25, Belleview,appeared and commented on the C & K Investments Sand Mine.
Mr. Kirk questioned the truth of an article he read that the State Legislature hadpassed a Bill providing an individual over 65 years of age, making less than $20,000 yearlywould be entitled to an additional $25,000 homestead exemption. He stated theCommissioners denied approval. Commissioner Kesselring stated the Cities of Belleviewand McIntosh were independent municipalities that elected to implement the program. Hestated the Board of County Commissioners opted not to take part in the unincorporatedportions of the County. In response to Mr. Kirk, Commissioner Kesselring stated thedecision was based upon equity issues as others would have to make up the shortfall ofthe substantial tax base that would be relinquished.
Comprehensive Plan - (2.D.) - Guy Marwick, NE 1st Street Road, Silver Springs,appeared and expressed concern with the SR 326 Corridor Study Area Master Plan futureproject. He stated the plan submitted by the Planning Department did not convey what thepublic expressed. Mr. Marwick commented on the density of the surrounding area andsuggested keeping it rural.
Garbage/Ordinances - (9.A.) - Deputy Clerk Smith presented Proof of PublicationNo. A000283170 entitled, “Notice of Intention to Adopt Ordinance” published in the StarBanner newspaper on February 9, 2007. The Notice stated the Board would consideradopting an Ordinance suspending residential solid waste and sunsetting the Solid WasteOrdinance.
Senior Assistant County Attorney Fowler presented the following recommendation:Description/Background: At the Board workshop held on January 17, 2007, staff wasdirected to amend the solid waste ordinance to provide for suspension of residentialcollection service rates for solid waste effective March 1, 2007 for new residentialcustomers, and October 1, 2007 for existing residential customers, ensure highquality of service and have the solid waste provisions of the Marion County Codesunset October 1, 2007.The attached ordinance has been prepared which amends the existing solid wasteordinance to allow for market rates to be charged to new customers, allows marketrates to be charged to existing customers effective October 1, 2007, requiresfranchisees to have a minimum of 400 residential customers and provides that thesolid waste sections of the Marion County Code, including the MSBU for SolidWaste, sunsets October 1, 2007.Budget Impact: None.Recommended Action: The Board of County Commissioners is requested to conductthe public hearing and adopt the attached Ordinance.Solid Waste Director Ken Whitehead stated one-on-one conversations with haulers
presented problems, which became a contentious issue when the 400 customer minimumwas required. Mr. Whitehead suggested several haulers would probably reapply due to thefact of not wanting a combined service.
In response to Commissioner Payton, Commissioner Stone stated franchise haulerswere not performing what was indicated at the time the franchise agreement was issued,
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 867
noting nothing in the Ordinance permitted or prevented a hauler from hauling eitherresidential or commercial.
There was no public comment. Chairman McClain stated it was not the governments responsibility to dictate and
enforce an individual on how to run its business. Commissioner Stone concurred, notingeach individual agreement needed to be well defined as to the type of hauling the particularfranchise was interested in conducting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerPayton, to adopt Ordinance 07-03 suspending residential solid waste and sunsetting theSolid Waste Ordinance, effective October 1, 2007, subject to removal of the requirementsfor a minimum number of customers, commercial or residential. The motion wasunanimously approved by the Board. The Ordinance was entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFMARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO SOLID WASTE; AMENDINGSUBSECTION 16-32(c) OF THE MARION COUNTY CODE; PROVIDINGFOR SUSPENSION OF RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SERVICE RATEAPPROVAL PROCESS; CREATING SECTION 16-64 OF THE MARIONCOUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SUNSET OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLEII AND ARTICLE III OF THE MARION COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FORREPEAL; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSIONIN CODE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Garbage/Resolutions - (9.B.) - Deputy Clerk Smith presented Proof of PublicationNo. A000279313 entitled, “Notice of Public Hearing on Establishing Policies andProcedures for Collection of Tipping Fees for Disposal of Non Residential Solid Waste inthe County” published in the Star Banner newspaper on February 2, 2007. The Noticestated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution modifying Policies and Proceduresfor Collection of Tipping Fees on Commercial Charge Accounts at the Baseline Solid WasteFacility.
There was no public comment. Solid Waste Director Ken Whitehead stated concern was expressed at previous
meetings regarding internal practices and policies. He stated the new procedure wouldrequire payment in thirty days.
Commissioner Payton questioned why a franchise would be allowed to haul unlesscash was received or something was paid towards its arrearages. Mr. Whitehead statedthe Board could become more stringent with its actions. Mr. Fowler stated a provision wasincluded in the Ordinance that would initiate revocation of a Franchise in the event it wasover 30 days late in paying the tipping fees. Commissioner Stone stated a franchise placedon Cash on Delivery (COD) did not solve the problem of paying off the outstanding balance.He stated he was in favor of not accepting cash, but requiring a Performance Bond in lieuof 4 months tipping fee and a cash bond. Commissioner Payton concurred. In response toCommissioner Stone, Messrs. Fowler and Whitehead stated the cash did not have to beoffered, noting a cash bond would be sufficient. Commissioner Stone suggested the cashoption be deleted and instead require a Performance Bond for all franchise haulers. Mr.Whitehead stated if the Resolution was passed there would be no arrears, noting onecompany, AWS, would be impacted immediately with approximately $127,000 in arrears.
Mr. Howard suggested some type of program be implemented and in place for
February 20, 2007
Page 868, Book I
easier customer transition if a franchise hauler did not comply. Commissioner Fitos notedthe customer would be penalized if the franchise hauler did not comply. She advised thatstaff had a very strong system in place and suggested allowing the debt collection serviceperform its job, noting they made no money if the arrearage continued. CommissionerPayton stated Commissioner Fitos was correct, but noted there were still problems. Hestated it was contrary to let a hauler serve its customers and a portion of the franchisesdebt be turned over to a collection agency. Commissioner Payton suggested customers benotified when their hauler had not complied with arrearage arrangements and to try to findanother way for trash disposal.
In response to Commissioner Stone, Mr. Fowler advised that the purpose of thebond was to act and collect on it without rendering to a collection service. CommissionerStone questioned why accounts were turned over to collection services instead ofexecuting the bond. Commissioner Kesselring expressed concern with accounts placed ona cash basis. He advised in order to keep the Department with a sound financial basis,payments were to be made in 30 days. Mr. Whitehead suggested at the end of the 30 daysa letter should be sent to the franchise and its customers stating in two weeks the haulerwould be out of business and would cease accepting garbage.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerStone, to adopt Resolution 07-R-54 repealing Resolution 03-R-151 modifying Policies andProcedures for Collection of Tipping Fees on commercial charge accounts at the BaselineLandfill, effective June 1, 2007, to include eliminating the cash requirement, but require allaccounts be secured by a Surety Bond, and if an account became overdue, the Countywould cease doing business with the company until arrangements had been made to rectifythe deficit. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Fitos voting nay.The Resolution was entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFMARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION OF TIPPING FEES FORNONRESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE.
Garbage/Resolutions - (9.C.) - Deputy Clerk Smith presented Proof of PublicationNo. A000279314 entitled, “Notice of Public Hearing on Establishing Policies andProcedures for Collection of Tipping Fees for Disposal and Providing for Repeal forDisposal of Non-Residential Solid Waste at County Facilities” published in the Star Bannernewspaper on February 2, 2007. The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting aResolution regarding the Residential Solid Waste Tipping Fee Credit.
Upon call for public comment, Jerry Lourenco, SE 58th Avenue, stated he wantedto opt out of the credit system. He advised that the system was operating under a universalcollection ordinance which was not in place. Mr. Lourenco stated he did not understandwhy the County collected for disposal over the scale, but he did not charge for disposal. Henoted commercial waste was allowed to go over the scales for free. Mr. Lourenco statedhe was a commercial hauler and charged his customers for their disposal. He stated healso collected from residential customers for the service not disposal. Mr. Lourenco statedhe did not mind paying for disposal when the opportunity arose to collecting for thedisposal.
In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. Whitehead stated there wasapproximately $127,000 outstanding that Alternative Waste Services (AWS) owed the
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 869
County.Commissioner Stone stated he agreed with the opt out portion of the Ordinance. He
questioned how a franchise hauler could legally be charged for disposal when theresidential property owner was already charged for that same disposal.
Mr. Whitehead stated once adopted it would be implemented immediately.Commissioner Stone advised all haulers who were not paying tipping fees that effectiveOctober 1, 2007 any and all garbage that went across the scale would be charged.
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by CommissionerKesselring, to adopt Resolution 07-R-55, repealing Resolution 03-R-326 and establishingpolicies and procedures for collection of tipping fees for Solid Waste disposal. The motionwas unanimously approved by the Board. The Resolution was entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFMARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES FOR COLLECTION OF TIPPING FEES FOR SOLIDWASTE DISPOSAL; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL; PROVIDING ANEFFECTIVE DATE.
Ordinances/Property Appraiser - (9.D.) - Deputy Clerk Smith presented Proof ofPublication No. A000282683 entitled, “Notice of Public Hearing to Adopt an Ordinance”published in the Star Banner newspaper on February 9, 2007. The Notice stated the Boardwould consider adopting an Ordinance relating to reduction in assessed value ofHomestead Property.
Senior Assistant County Attorney Fowler presented the following recommendation:Description/Background: At its last meeting, the Board authorized advertisement ofthe attached ordinance for public hearing. The ordinance authorizes the county toprovide for a reduction in the assessed value of homestead property which resultsfrom the construction or reconstruction of the property for the purpose of providingliving quarters for one or more natural or adoptive parents or grandparents of theowner of the property or of the owners spouse if at least one of the parents orgrandparents for whom the living quarters are provided is at least 62 years of age.The ordinance also provides for the qualifications necessary for the reduction andthe procedures for claiming the reduction.Budget Impact: Unknown at this time.Recommended Action: The Board of County Commissioners is requested to conductthe public hearing and adopt of the attached Ordinance.Upon call for public comment, Susan Creel, Fir Trail Court, Silver Springs Shores,
requested support of the Ordinance that would help homeowners who assisted in caringfor elderly relatives.
In response to Commissioner Stone, Mr. Fowler stated he did not see formsprovided by the Property Appraiser’s Office, but included the statement to allow theProperty Appraiser’s Office to have the discretion to require whatever information wasnecessary to confirm the qualification for the reduction.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,to adopt Ordinance 07-04, relating to reduction in assessed value of Homestead Property.The motion was unanimously approved by the Board. Ordinance 07-04 was entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFMARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO REDUCTION IN ASSESSED
February 20, 2007
Page 870, Book I
VALUE OF HOMESTEAD PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS;PROVIDING FOR REDUCTION IN ASSESSED VALUE; PROVIDING FORQUALIFICATIONS FOR REDUCTION; PROVIDING FOR AMOUNT OFREDUCTION; PROVIDING FOR PROCESS FOR CLAIMING REDUCTION;PROVIDING FOR PROPERTY HELD JOINTLY WITH RIGHT OFSURVIVORSHIP; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDING FORDISQUALIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FORREPEAL; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE; PROVIDING ANEFFECTIVE DATE.
Minutes - (3.A.) - Upon motion of Commissioner Kesselring, seconded byCommissioner Stone, the Board adopted meeting minutes of January 9, and 17, 2007.
Garbage/Resolutions - Commissioner Payton requested an explanation as to whyMr. Lourenco was disputing the amount he owed. Mr. Whitehead commented on the oneton per household base. He stated in August 2005, approximately 5,000 customers weretransferred from Waste Management to AWS, which generated more than one ton perhousehold, noting it was at that time when Mr. Lourenco’s financial issues accelerated. Mr.Whitehead stated AWS was subsidizing other haulers which was unfair.
In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. Whitehead stated it was a conscious,negotiated business decision under no duress from the County. He advised that eventhough the Ordinance referenced after 30 days actions may be taken, the internal policywas set that the hauler would not be turned over to a collection agency nor would its bondbe executed until after 90 days. Mr. Whitehead stated the Department failed in not makingsure the bond kept up with the amount owed. Commissioner Stone indicated the Countydid not charge an individual resident to bring in more than the one ton average. Mr.Whitehead concurred. Commissioner Stone questioned how a hauler could legally becharged and not a resident for the same waste disposal more than the one ton average.Mr. Whitehead stated the Ordinance established there would be no subsidies fromresidential to commercial. He stated the procedures set forth to prevent subsidies was thecredit system which had somewhat caused a subsidy, noting it was from hauler to hauler,not hauler to County. Commissioner Stone stated the hauler picking up light loads shouldnot be subsidized while the hauler collecting heavy loads should not be penalized. Hestated if residential waste was dumped, the County collected from the property owner andquestioned why a hauler that hauled light loads would be given credit, noting that samecredit was used against commercial tipping fees, which should never occur. CommissionerStone stated a hauler stepped up when no one else had and acquired the route knowingthe system was wrong. He noted the hauler had asked several times to opt out of the creditsystem to which the County denied and was prolonged for 19 months. Commissioner Stoneadvised that if the hauler had been allowed to opt out when he first asked the County wouldnot be owed anything. Mr. Whitehead stated he agreed with that description. He noted theway the Ordinance and Resolution were written there was no way for the hauler to opt outwithout Board approval. Commissioner Stone stated the credit system was never fullydefined. He stated credits were allowed to be used from residential to offset tipping feesfor commercial, noting at that time the County violated its own Ordinance.
In response to Commissioner Stone, Mr. Whitehead advised that the transactiontook place around August 2005 and according to Mr. Lourenco there was previous
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 871
discussions with prior staff members of the Solid Waste Department regarding the one tonaverage.
In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. Whitehead stated all information waspublic record. Commissioner Payton advised due to AWS not conducting due diligence wasnot the County’s responsibility.
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton to immediately place AWS on a cashbasis, allow 90 days to repay all arrearages, and within 10 days of adopting the motion ifarrangements had not been made, the customer base be notified of the County’s intentionto revoke the franchise after the 90 days. Mr. Whitehead stated he would adhere towhatever the Board decided, but strongly recommended the Board not proceed in thatdirection. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Budgets/Resolutions - (5.A.1. through 8.) - Upon motion of CommissionerKesselring, seconded by Commissioner Stone, the Board adopted the following BudgetAmendment Resolutions presented by Clerk Ellspermann:
1. 07-R-56 transferring $15,000 within the General Fund for the Parks andRecreation Department.
2. 07-R-57 transferring $50,114 within the General Fund for the UndergroundStorage Inspection Program.
3. 07-R-58 transferring $3,000 within the General Fund for the Animal Center.4. 07-R-59 transferring $32,212 within the General Fund for the Parks and
Recreation Department.5. 07-R-60 transferring $4,590 within the General Fund for County Court
Judges.6. 07-R-61 transferring $2,393 within the Criminal Justice Court Costs Fund for
the General Fund.7. 07-R-62 transferring $7,500 within the Marion County Utilities Fund for
Customer Service.8. Request to transfer $25,000 within the Marion County Utilities Fund for
Customer Service was withdrawn. (Ed. Note: This matter was readdressedlater in the meeting.)
Commissioner Payton requested Item 5.A.8. be discussed with a similar item on theConsent Agenda. Commissioner Kesselring agreed to amend his motion to withdraw item5.A.8. Chairman McClain questioned Items 5.A.5. and 5.A.6. with the transferring ofmonies. Clerk Ellspermann stated it was a refund of Judicial funds to the General Fund forpayment of a bill, noting it was paid from a facility fee. In response to Commissioner Fitos,Clerk Ellspermann stated it was for Judge Ritterhoff-Williams chambers.
Surplus Property - (5.B.) - Upon motion of Commissioner Kesselring, seconded byCommissioner Stone, the Board approved Acquisition or Disposition of Property formschanging the status of the following items of property: 6165, 27411 and 37019.
Upon motion of Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Stone, theBoard acted on the Consent Agenda for the County Attorney items 6.A.1. through 3.,Human Resources items 6.B.1. and 2., Planning Department items 6.C.1. and 2.,Purchasing Department items 6.D.1. through 17., Solid Waste Department item 6.E.1.,Transportation Department items 6.F.1. through 5., and Utilities Department items 6.G.1.
February 20, 2007
Page 872, Book I
and 2., as follows:
Contracts & Agreements/Districts/Municipalities - (6.A.1.) - Accepted therecommendation of County Attorney Thomas L. Wright to approve and execute theInterlocal Agreement with the City of Ocala for Automatic and Mutual Aid.
Contracts & Agreements/Districts/Municipalities/Resolutions - (6.A.2.) - The Boardconsidered the recommendation of County Attorney Wright in relation to the InterlocalAgreement with the City of Ocala for Emergency Fire Service in County/City Enclave Areas.
Commissioner Kesselring stated a Budget Amendment was required. ClerkEllspermann advised that adoption of a Budget Amendment Resolution was presented thatwas appropriate for the Item. Commissioner Kesselring commended the Chairman on hisefforts with the agreement. Chairman McClain stated it was a joint effort.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,to approve and authorize execution of the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Ocala forAutomatic and Mutual Aid, and adopted Budget Amendment Resolution 07-R-63transferring $233,334 from the MSBU for Fire Protection and Rescue Services toFire/Rescue Services. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Budgets/Ordinances - (6.A.3.) - Accepted recommendation of Chief AssistantCounty Attorney Thomas D. MacNamara to approve the recommendation of the CodeEnforcement Board to execute the Release of Code Enforcement Lien against Danny K.and Victoria L. Bowman in regard to Case No. 361640JB.
County Employees/Parks & Recreation/Resolutions - (6.B.1.) - Accepted thefollowing recommendation of Human Resources Director Drew Adams to adopt Resolution07-R-64 adding the job description of a Parks Manager, effective February 20, 2007:
Description/Background: Based on Board action February 6, 2007 to terminate theCity of Ocala/ Marion County/ Marion County School Board Recreation Agreement,and Board authorization to hire a Recreation Manager, attached is the resolution toformalize the position and to add the job description to the Marion CountyClassification and Pay Plan.Budget Impact: Salary and benefits in the amount of $36,720 will be needed to fundthe position for the remainder of the fiscal year.Recommended Action: Board motion to approve the attached resolution to approvethe position of Recreation Manager with the associated pay grade for addition intothe Classification and Pay Plan.
County Employees/Utilities - (6.B.2.) - Accepted the following recommendation ofHuman Resources Director Adams to approve the salary adjustment for the UtilitiesAssistant Director, Engineer position:
Description/Background: The Utilities Department desires to fill the vacancy ofUtilities Assistant Director – Engineering (Exhibit A). The County recently conductedinterviews. During the interview process there were only 4 qualified applicants. Afterthe conclusion of the interview process an exceedingly qualified applicant has beenselected. Mr. Todd Petrie is currently the Assistant Public Utilities Director for theCity of Clearwater. He is responsible for the day to day operational activities, makes
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 873
policy development and position recommendations. He has extensive experiencewith project design, engineering and construction. The candidate currently earns $79,000 as the Assistant Public Utilities Director forthe City of Clearwater. He has agreed to accept the position with Marion County ifa salary of $85,000 is offered. This represents a $20,894 increase over the minimumstarting salary and is therefore over the County Administrator’s authority (which is15% above minimum). It is recommended the salary be adjusted accordingly to$85,000 so that a qualified applicant can be hired. It is vitally important to have ahighly qualified Assistant Utilities Director - Engineering because of the complexityof the Utilities Department and growth of the County.Budget Impact: Funds are available within this Department to cover the increase.Recommended Action: Board motion to approve the salary adjustment for theUtilities Assistant Director - Engineer position.
Easements/Parks & Recreation/Utilities - (6.C.1.) - Accepted recommendation ofPlanning Director Dwight Ganoe to approve and execute the Distribution Easement toProgress Energy Florida, Inc. to provide preliminary power to the Wrigley Fields property.It was noted the County Facilities and Parks Departments reviewed the location of theproposed utilities and recommended execution of the Easement.
Contracts & Agreements/Districts/Sheriff - (6.C.2.) - The Board considered thefollowing recommendation of Planning Director Ganoe in regard to the Purchase and Saleof Real Property with George J. Albright, Jr., Trustee for a Fire Station site and Sheriff’ssub-station:
Description/Background: Attached is a proposed “Agreement for Purchase and Saleof Real Property” for a parcel of land approximately 3.4 acres in size locatedadjacent to the Ocklawaha Ball Field Park. The parcel (Tax Roll Parcel #49007-000-00) is needed to provide land for a fire station site and Sheriff’s sub-station.The proposed purchase price of $155,500 is supported by a appraisal prepared byAlbert Peek Realty and Investment Corporation which, based on comparable sales,estimated the market value of the property at $155,500. The proposed agreementrequires that the seller provide and pay for title insurance and pay for thedocumentary stamps associated with recording the deed. The seller will also beresponsible for paying the 2007 taxes pro-rated to the date of closing.The agreement has been executed by the current owner, George J. Albright, Jr.,Trustee of the George J. Albright, Jr. Trust, and approved as to form and legalsufficiency by the County Attorney’s Office. Funds for this purchase in the amountof $80,000 have been budgeted from the Local Option Sales Tax with the remainingbalance of $76,000 budgeted utilizing the Fire Rescue Impact Fee.Budget Impact: Estimated at $156,000 (purchase price plus closing costs, notincluding survey).Recommended Action: Motion to approve Agreement for Purchase and Sale of RealProperty (attached) with George J. Albright, Jr., Trustee of the George J. Albright,Jr. Trust dated January 13, 2004 for the purchase of Tax Roll Parcel #49007-000-00and authorize execution by the Chairman and Clerk.Commissioner Stone questioned if the park close to the proposed property was
County owned and if so, had staff considered utilizing some of the park for the intended
February 20, 2007
Page 874, Book I
purpose. Planning Director Dwight Ganoe stated the plan was to utilize part of the parkaccess as well as other ideas. He advised that the purchase of additional property wasneeded. Chairman McClain stated part of the property would be used as a retention area,noting the access would be improved and eventually provide dual access.
A motion was made by Commissioner Stone, seconded by Commissioner Fitos, toapprove and execute the Purchase and Sale of Real Property with George J. Albright, Jr.,Trustee for a Fire Station site and Sheriff’s sub-station. The motion was unanimouslyapproved by the Board.
Contracts & Agreements/Road Improvements - (6.D.1.) - The Board consideredrecommendation of Purchasing Director Diane Tucker in relation to contract with MichaelW. Radcliffe Engineering, Inc. for engineering and design services for Orange BlossomHills Units 5, 7, and 10, as requested by the MSTU Department pursuant to Bid No. 07Q-004.
In response to Commissioner Kesselring, MSTU/Assessment Director Myra Tedderstated the portion included utilities. Commissioner Kesselring stated he thought a decisionfor this item would be a little premature, noting the same engineer should perform all of thework and design. Commissioner Payton noted a conflict with this Item and 6.D.11. Ms.Tedder stated the Board had already approved the first three that were under design. Shestated she understood the work was supposed to be piggybacked.
Utilities Director Andy Neff advised that staff was working with the road designengineer on integrating the utilities into the road project with the intended purpose to notdelay the road work or process. He stated a proposal from the engineer was expectedsoon. Mr. Neff commented on Item 6.D.11., which was initial work when the matter firstsurfaced. He stated the Utilities Department was working with the MSTU Department ona separate issue which was the actual implementation of the project.
Commissioner Payton stated the description given covered the budget transfer (Item5.A.8.), but not the agenda item. He questioned if the Scope of Work was previouslyapproved by the Board. Mr. Howard stated he thought verbal instruction was given toHartman Consulting & Design.
In response to Commissioner Kesselring, Mr. Wright stated one week wasreasonable notice if a workshop needed to be scheduled.
In response to Commissioner Payton and Ms. Tucker, Mr. Neff stated the work hadnot been performed, and the budget transfer was for Items 6.D.11. and 5.A.8.
Chairman McClain stated Hartman Consulting already performed work on theFeasibility Study which was verbally authorized, noting the amount was for payment of thatservice. Mr. Neff stated Hartman Consulting provided a memorandum that listed Scope ofServices for facilities, options and costs, cost allocation, policies and approaches, financingoptions as well as alternatives.
In response to Commissioner Kesselring, Ms. Tedder stated the engineering designof the roads and utilities were separate issues, but would be integrated at some point. Shestated if utilities did not go forward there would be nothing in the way of road design.
Commissioner Kesselring stated utilities was suppose to be piggybacked onto theexisting engineering. He advised if both jobs were conducted as one, they should havebeen bid as one. Ms. Tedder stated she agreed with bidding together, but not designingtogether. She stated if the Utilities Department did not move forward with the utilities thenthe road plan that had sewer and water would present a problem with the contractor
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 875
building the roads. Commissioner Kesselring suggested waiting until an upcomingworkshop to discuss the issue further then a decision could be made. Ms. Tedder statedcontractors were questioning her in regard to when the work should proceed, notingconstruction prices would rise the longer the wait. Commissioner Payton stated 110individuals would be affected and faced approximately $14,000 or more of assessmentsfor connection of utilities.
In response to Commissioner Payton, Commissioner Kesselring stated there wereother options and alternatives in order to help the individuals as opposed to the flat fee.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerPayton, to table Items 6.D.1. and 6.D.11. until the workshop on Thursday, March 1, 2007.
Commissioner Fitos questioned how the MSTU time line would be affected. Ms.Tedder stated she was unsure of the affects and would have to meet with the engineer.
In response to Commissioner Kesselring, Ms. Tedder stated she did not think 9 dayswould make that much difference, noting Items 6.D.11. and 6.D.14. were already inprogress and under design based on previous Board approval and none to which hadutilities unless piggybacked. She advised that staff was working with the engineer to devisea plan that would be more cost effective and less expensive. Ms. Tedder stated she wantedthe project to be economical, noting working together would be beneficial to all and less ofa burden on the residents in the community. She noted the engineer involved also used thecommon sense approach.
Commissioner Fitos stated she was comfortable with moving forward with the projectafter the workshop. She suggested some type of relief for utilities and road assessment forthe homeowners needed to come before the Board for dialogue, discussion andconsideration.
Chairman McClain stated he had made a commitment to move the project forwardand would not support the motion. He stated if offered to one group, in order to be fair itwould have to be offered to all groups. Commissioner Stone concurred. He stated therewere too many unanswered questions with utilities and did not want the road projectdelayed.
Commissioner Payton stated the Scope of Work identified in the agenda requiredthe road design to commensurate with the utilities.
Commissioner Stone stated the workshop would not produce enough facts andfunding sources that would allow the particular project to continue. Commissioner Fitosstated the alternative would be to move forward with the road. Ms. Tedder stated herpreference was not to move forward with the road construction until a decision was madein regard to the utilities, noting she wanted the design completed and prepared so theprojects would be simultaneous.
Chairman McClain clarified the motion was to table Items 6.D.1. and 6.D.11. untilthe workshop on Thursday, March 1, 2007, which also included the Budget Amendment(5.A.8.). The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 3-2, with Chairman McClainand Commissioner Stone voting nay.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,to schedule a workshop on Thursday, March 1, 2007 to address utility installation in OrangeBlossom Hills to immediately follow the Springs Protection workshop. The motion wasunanimously approved by the Board. (Ed. Note: This item was again discussed later in themeeting.)
February 20, 2007
Page 876, Book I
Purchasing/Utilities - (6.D.2.) - The Board considered recommendation ofPurchasing Director Tucker in regard to Change Order Nos. 3 and 4 to Purchase Order No.0700840, as requested by the Utilities Department.
Commissioner Payton questioned the large Change Order and why it was notincluded in the original Scope of Work. Mr. Neff apologized and stated it was an oversight.
In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. Neff advised that the Utilities Departmentwas in the process of a conversion with the programs for the computer system, but was notcompleted.
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by CommissionerKesselring, to approve and execute Change Order Nos. 3 and 4 to Purchase Order No.0700840, as requested by the Utilities Department. The motion was unanimously approvedby the Board.
Contracts & Agreements/Traffic Control - (6.D.3.) - Accepted recommendation ofPurchasing Director Tucker to approve and execute contract with Temple, Inc. for TrafficSignal Materials (LEDs) for a term of three years, as requested by the TransportationDepartment pursuant to Bid No. 07B-031.
Contracts & Agreements/Road Improvements - (6.D.4.) - The Board consideredrecommendation of Purchasing Director Tucker to reject all bids and execute contract withCounts Construction utilizing piggyback unit pricing from Bid No. 06B-016 to bring the LarryGriggs Subdivision Road Improvement Program project within budget, as requested by theMSTU/Assessment Department.
(Ed. Note: Item 6.D.4. was discussed together with Item 6.D.5.)
Contracts & Agreements/Road Improvements - (6.D.5.) - The Board consideredrecommendation of Purchasing Director Tucker to reject all bids and execute piggybackcontract with Counts Construction Co., Inc. regarding the Remington Oaks RoadAssessment, as requested by the MSTU/Assessment Department Bid No. 06B-056.
Commissioner Kesselring requested Items 6.D.4. and 6.D.5. be discussed andconsidered together.
Commissioner Kesselring expressed concern with piggybacking on the secondranked firm of the bid and questioned if it met the intent and integrity of the bidding process.In response to Commissioner Kesselring, Ms. Tucker stated staff contacted FloridaHighway Products who informed staff that the project could not be value engineered.Commissioner Kesselring questioned what would stop a company from piggybacking onanother project when another firm had overbid or over budgeted.
Commissioner Stone questioned why the bidding was started if a company couldvalue engineer or piggyback onto an established bid. He suggested documentation berequired if a company could not value engineer a project. Ms. Tedder stated the PurchasingDepartment acquired the documentation. She stated the company submitted a bid thatincluded recycled asphalt, which was not acceptable. Ms. Tedder stated the PurchasingDepartment also received a letter from the company advising they were unable to adhereto the contract.
In response to Chairman McClain, Ms. Tedder stated the company knowinglysubmitted a bid that did not comply with the specs sent out by the County.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring to reject all bids submitted and
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 877
rebid the project. The motion failed for lack of a second. A motion was made by Commissioner Stone, seconded by Commissioner Payton
to approve Items 6.D.4. and 6.D.5. Chairman McClain advised that the bid should never have been accepted, even if
it was the low bid since it did not meet the specifications. Ms. Tucker stated not only didthey not meet the specifications, the project was over budget. She stated that was thereason staff went back and tried to value engineer the project and noted even the low bidwas over the budget that MSTU had for the project. Ms. Tucker stated at that point theMSTU Department searched for a company with existing projects that could possibly bepiggybacked onto within the same unit pricing. Commissioner Stone suggested usingcaution when piggybacking on other existing contracts. Chairman McClain concurred.
In response to Commissioner Fitos, Ms. Tucker stated the historical precedence topiggyback (in most cases) was on MSTU projects because the larger contractors did notalways bid on smaller projects. She stated along with Ms. Tedder, Purchasing staff hadencountered issues when attempting to acquire viable bids for smaller projects.
The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1, with CommissionerKesselring voting nay.
Projects & Programs - Chairman McClain commented on the ribbon cuttingceremony at Lake Weir Ranchettes.
Contracts & Agreements/Utilities - (6.D.6.) - Accepted recommendation ofPurchasing Director Tucker to authorize staff to negotiate with Florida Neptunerepresentatives in order to standardize the Neptune radio read meters, as requested by theUtilities Department.
Contracts & Agreements/Utilities - (6.D.7.) - Accepted recommendation ofPurchasing Director Tucker to approve and execute contracts with Ferguson Waterworksto provide PVC and HD Supply Waterworks, Ltd. to provide brass for the UtilitiesDepartment for a term of one year.
Buildings & Grounds/Contracts & Agreements/Libraries - (6.D.8.) - Acceptedrecommendation of Purchasing Director Tucker to approve and execute contractamendment to the Contract for Construction Manager for Misc. Projects with EthridgeConstruction for the Belleview Library, as requested by the Facilities Management/LibraryDepartments pursuant to 05Q-036.
Contracts & Agreements/Utilities - (6.D.9.) - The Board considered recommendationof Purchasing Director Tucker in relation to contract amendment to the Contract forConstruction Manager for Misc. Projects with Ethridge Construction for the Ft. McCoyRecycle Center - Pad Extension, as requested by the Facilities Management/LibraryDepartments pursuant to 05Q-036.
(Ed. Note: Item 6.D.9. was discussed later in the meeting together with Item 6.D.13.)
Buildings & Grounds/Contracts & Agreements - (6.D.10.) - Acceptedrecommendation of Purchasing Director Tucker to approve and execute contractamendment with USSI for janitorial services for additional County buildings, as requested
February 20, 2007
Page 878, Book I
by the Facilities Management Department pursuant to 05P-091.
Contracts & Agreements/Utilities - (6.D.11.) - Tabled consideration to March 1, 2007(immediately following the Springs Protection workshop) in regard to the contractamendment with Hartman Consulting & Design for the Orange Blossom Hills FeasibilityAssessment, as requested by the Utilities Department.
(Ed. Note: This matter was discussed earlier with Item 6.D.1. and again later in themeeting.)
Buildings & Grounds/Contracts & Agreements/Sheriff - (6.D.12.) - The Boardconsidered the recommendation of Purchasing Director Tucker in relation to the Contractfor Construction Manager for Misc. Projects with Ethridge Construction for the accesscontrol system for the Sheriff’s Operation Center, as requested by the FacilitiesManagement Department pursuant to 05Q-036.
Chairman McClain questioned the budget impact in addition to the bid received andsuggested a page might be missing from the agenda packet.
It was the general consensus of the Board to table the matter until 2:00 p.m. whenthe meeting reconvened.
(Ed. Note: This matter was again discussed later in the meeting.)
Contracts & Agreements/Landfills - (6.D.13.) - The Board consideredrecommendation of Purchasing Director Tucker in regard to the Continuing Contract forConstruction Manager for Misc. Projects with Ethridge Construction for the Canal RecyclingCenter, as requested by the Facilities Management/Solid Waste Departments pursuant to05Q-036, along with reconsideration of item 6.D.9.
Commissioner Stone questioned the phasing out of some recycling centers andnoted the future of the collection recycling centers was previously discussed at a workshop.He questioned the rebuilding of a center in its entirety and spending over $500,000 and theproposed project for a yard debris pad that would cost approximately $22,000.
In response to Commissioner Stone, Mr. Whitehead stated several proposals werediscussed to reduce recycling centers and services, but none were accepted. He statedsince then staff had gone to a “pay as you go” approach at recycling centers. Mr.Whitehead stated with Board direction staff would move forward with renovations for therecycling centers because they would eventually become profit centers. He recommendedthe recycling center either be closed or expanded and renovated, noting there were healthissues that needed addressing.
Commissioner Payton stated he intended for all options to be discussed. Hesuggested not moving forward with this item until there was an established policy decision.
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by CommissionerKesselring, to approve and execute Item 6.D.9. to approve and execute the contractamendment to the Contract for Construction Manager for Misc. Projects with EthridgeConstruction for the Ft. McCoy Recycle Center - Pad Extension, as requested by theFacilities Management/Library Departments pursuant to 05Q-036. The motion wasunanimously approved by the Board.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerStone, to indefinitely withdraw Item 6.D.13. The motion was unanimously approved by theBoard.
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 879
Chairman McClain questioned if there were existing plan designs and if each wasgoing to be prepared individually. He suggested incorporating a card reader system. Mr.Whitehead stated the existing designs did not accommodate any of those suggestions. Hestated there was an upcoming meeting to discuss and address all of the issues.
Buildings & Grounds/Contracts & Agreements/Libraries - (6.D.14.) - Acceptedrecommendation of Purchasing Director Tucker to execute contract amendment for theContinuing Contact for Construction Manager for Misc. Projects with Ethridge Constructionfor the Dunnellon Library, as requested by the Facilities Management/Library Departmentspursuant to 05Q-036.
Airports/Buildings & Grounds/Contracts & Agreements - (6.D.15.) - Acceptedrecommendation of Purchasing Director Tucker to approve and execute T-Hangar LeaseAgreement with DAB Constructors, Inc. for the lease of DA-6 and DA-7 located at theDunnellon Airport.
Purchasing/Road Improvements - (6.D.16.) - Accepted recommendation ofPurchasing Director Tucker to approve and execute Change Order No. 1 to PurchaseOrder No. 0700378 with Counts Construction for the Marion Oaks MSBU Road OverlayProgram to add additional roads at the cost of $559,000 and an additional 365 days, asrequested by the MSTU/Assessment Department pursuant to Bid No. 06B-033.
Purchasing - (6.D.17.) - The Board approved Purchase Orders over $10,000 aslisted on schedule dated today.
Contracts & Agreements/Landfills/Ordinances - (6.E.1.) - Accepted recommendationof Solid Waste Director Ken Whitehead to approve and execute the Letter of Engagementwith Young Van Assenderp, P.A. as outside counsel to draft a new Solid Waste Ordinanceby October 1, 2007.
Contracts & Agreements/Road Improvements - (6.F.1.) - Accepted recommendationof County Engineer Mounir Bouyounes, Transportation Department, to execute PurchaseAgreement with Carl and Joann Zalak in the amount of $530,000 for Parcel No. 29850-000-46 to acquire necessary right of way for the SE 31st Street Extension Improvement Project.
Resolutions/Traffic Control - (6.F.2.) - Accepted recommendation of County EngineerBouyounes, Transportation Department, to adopt Resolution 07-R-65 terminating theexisting fifty-five (55) mph speed limit and establishing a forty-five (45) mph speed limit onCR 25 from 546' west of SE 75th Court to SE 99th Court.
Contracts & Agreements/Resolutions/Road Construction - (6.F.3.) - Accepted thefollowing recommendation of County Engineer Bouyounes, Transportation Department, toapprove the Locally Funded Agreement with the State of Florida Department ofTransportation (FDOT) and adopted Resolution 07-R-66 regarding CR 484 from SE 47th
Avenue/SE 135th Street to SR 500 (US 441):Description/Background: On January 3, 2006 the Florida Department ofTransportation and Marion County entered into a Local Funding Agreement for the
February 20, 2007
Page 880, Book I
construction of CR 484. Based upon FDOT’s original work program constructioncost estimate an initial funding amount of $2,696,331.00 was approved for transferto FDOT with the understanding that the County would be obligated to fund one-halfof the non-federal share of the final construction cost that is in excess of the originalwork program cost estimate. Project construction began in November of 2006.FDOT has encountered unforeseen construction work and subsequent costs relatedto embankment, excavation of unsuitable material and piling length quantityoverruns. As a result the County is obligated to fund an additional amount of$108,049.00. The additional funds will be needed from the current 2006/2007 FYbudget. The FDOT/Marion County LFA requires that the funds be transferred toFDOT upon request in order to maintain the continuity of the work involving theoverrun items. Our ultimate cost share will vary dependent upon the final non-federal cost for the completed construction. Construction is currently scheduled toend by September of 2008.Budget Impact: $108,049.00 is currently available from the Impact Fee District 3fund. Funding for the project is identified from District 3 because of the direct benefitthat will be gained by the District from improved accessibility and the efficientmovement of goods and people. The new CR 484 alignment is the only directconnection to I-75 south of the SR 200 interchange providing regional access for theCity of Belleview, Silver Springs Shores and Lake Weir communities. The CR 484highway improvement project is recognized as regionally significant by theOcala/Marion County Transportation Planning Organization and FDOT serving theincreasing transportation needs of southeastern and southwestern Marion County.Due to the described benefits it is recommended that this project be totally fundedfrom Impact Fee District 3.Recommended Action: Motion to approve the supplemental funding for the CR 484Locally Funded Agreement with FDOT and authorize the Chairman and Clerk toexecute the same.
Resolutions/Traffic Control - (6.F.4.) - Accepted recommendation of County EngineerBouyounes, Transportation Department, to adopt Resolution 07-R-67 establishing a twenty(20) mph speed limit on NE 58th Circle based upon the centerline radii of Curves C-1 andC-2.
Contracts & Agreements/Subdivisions - (6.F.5.) - Accepted recommendation ofCounty Engineer Bouyounes, Transportation Department, to execute an IndemnificationAgreement with The Sanctuary, LLC developer of St. James Park. It was noted thedeveloper had met all required conditions under Policy 95-02.
Easements/Utilities - (6.G.1.) - Accepted recommendation of Utilities DirectorAndrew Neff to approve and execute the Distribution Easement with Progress Energy ofFlorida, Inc. to provide electrical power to Water Plant G.
Budgets/Refunds/Utilities - (6.G.2.) - Accepted the following recommendation ofUtilities Director Neff to approve the refund to Hall Robertson for the Stonecrest of Marion,Ltd.:
Description/Background: In accordance with the Settlement Agreement & Release
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 881
of All Claims, dated May 4, 2003, between Stonecrest of Marion, Ltd, and MarionCounty, the County shall pay a rebate of $410.00 for water and $685.00 forwastewater on all capital charges collected by the County in the Stonecrestsubdivision. This rebate is in return for the developer designing and building thewater and wastewater lines in Stonecrest and transferring ownership to the County.
306 Water Connections $125,665.00289 Wastewater Connections $198,307.50Total Rebate Amount $323,972.50
Budget Impact: $323,972.50 (7130-599801)Recommended Action: The Board of County Commissioners approve a motion toauthorize the Chairman to approve the refund of $323,972.50 to Stonecrest ofMarion, Ltd.
There was a recess at 12:24 p.m.The meeting reconvened at 12:30 p.m. with all members present.
Buildings & Grounds/Contracts & Agreements/Sheriff - (6.D.12.) - Chairman McClainclarified that the $8,000 was for construction management fee and other costs thecontractor would incur.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerStone, to approve and execute contract amendment to the Contract for ConstructionManager for Misc. Projects with Ethridge Construction for the access control system for theSheriff’s Operation Center, as requested by the Facilities Management Departmentpursuant to 05Q-036. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Districts/Ordinances - (7.A.) - County Attorney Thomas L. Wright presented thefollowing memo from Senior Assistant County Attorney Fowler requesting authorization toadvertise two Ordinances for public hearing in relation to parking of vehicles for sale,parking in areas zoned for residential use and unserviceable vehicles:
Description/Background: The Board has requested recommendations as a result ofthe problem of certain vehicles parked in residential areas of Marion County. Afterconsultation with Code Enforcement, the attached ordinances have been preparedin order to address these problems.The first ordinance regulates the parking of vehicles for sale upon public streets orhighways, public parking lots, other public property, or private property where thepublic has the right to travel by motor vehicle. The ordinance also prohibits theparking of more than one motor vehicle per 1,875 square feet of surface area on anyparcel zoned for residential uses.The second ordinance amends the code provision defining unserviceable vehiclesby reducing the time period, for which an unserviceable vehicle may remain in suchcondition, from thirty (30) days to seven (7) days, and includes vehicles which areunsafe or lacking proper equipment in said definition.Budget Impact: None.Recommended Action: The Board of County Commissioners is requested toauthorize advertisement of the attached ordinances for public hearing. Possiblehearing date: March 20, 2007.Upon motion of Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Stone, the
February 20, 2007
Page 882, Book I
Board authorized advertising a public hearing on March 20, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. to considertwo Ordinances in relation to parking of vehicles for sale, parking in areas zoned forresidential use and unserviceable vehicles.
Commissioner Payton questioned if the square foot surface area was inclusive orexclusive of any other dwellings, noting it was not defined in the ordinance.
Mr. Fowler stated he had previous discussions with the Zoning Department and itwas decided that the smallest parcel in the County would allow up to four vehicles.
It was the general consensus of the Board to discuss the matter further at the publichearing.
The Board directed staff to research the definition in detail to see if the square footsurface area was inclusive or exclusive of any other dwellings, since it was not defined inthe ordinance, to present at the public hearing.
Mr. Fowler noted for the record of a typographical error on page one of theunserviceable vehicle ordinance that was corrected prior to it being advertised.
County Employees/Insurance/Resolutions - (7.B.) - County Attorney Wrightpresented a recommendation from Risk Management Director Dalke in relation to aWorker’s Compensation Settlement regarding Pertie C. Carter vs. Marion County. It wasnoted the settlement amount of $20,000 would be paid from the Worker’s Compensationself-insured fund, and was recommended by Risk Management and defense counsel, BettyMarion.
Upon motion of Commissioner Payton, seconded by Commissioner Kesselring, theBoard adopted Resolution 07-R-68 approving settlement in the amount of $20,000 in thematter of Pertie C. Carter vs. Marion County.
Insurance/Resolutions/Sheriff - (7.C.) - County Attorney Wright presented arecommendation from Risk Management Director Dalke for an auto liability settlementregarding Shona Bartholow vs. Marion County. He noted the settlement amount of $90,000would be paid from the Auto Liability self-insured fund, and was recommended by RiskManagement and defense counsel, Christopher Coleman.
Upon motion of Commissioner Payton, seconded by Commissioner Stone, the Boardadopted Resolution 07-R-69 approving settlement in the amount of $90,000 in the matterof Shona Bartholow vs. Marion County.
Contracts & Agreements/Resolutions/Subdivisions - (7.D.) - County Attorney Wrightpresented the following recommendation from Chief Assistant County Attorney Thomas D.MacNamara to consider adoption of a Resolution authorizing changes to SubdivisionImprovement Agreement requirements:
Description/Background: Section 8.2.3.b.(5), Developer's Improvement PlanOptions, of the County Land Development Code provides that improvement plansbased on an approved preliminary subdivision plat may be submitted for review andapproval of the County Engineer, with appeal to the Board. The subdivisiondeveloper has two options: (1) construct all subdivision improvements prior tosubmittal of the final plat or (2) apply for final plat approval with an improvementagreement with the Board providing for the cost of improvements with security in theamount of the improvements.The County Engineer has recommended that acceptable security for subdivision
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 883
improvements be limited to an irrevocable letter of credit or bond only, the amountof security increased to 120% of estimated cost and the Development ReviewCommittee recommends approval of these changes.Pursuant to Board direction on February 6, 2007, a partial inspection of subdivisionimprovements by the County Engineer with an improvement agreement providing120% security for the cost of uncompleted subdivision improvements, shall beauthorized by individual waiver request to the Board.Budget Impact: None.Recommended Action: The Board is requested to adopt the attached Resolutionwith or without changes and authorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute same. Commissioner Payton questioned the Letter of Credit (LOC) issued by the bank for
this item and Summercrest (Item 8.D.), noting the work would not be completed by the dropdate and there would be no collateral. He questioned what procedures could be taken toprotect the County.
Mr. MacNamara stated under the Improvement Agreement the engineer of recordwas required to establish what period of time it would take for the improvements that werecovered with the LOC. He stated the declaration was always compared to the initial termof the LOC when issued, noting the issuing bank was made a party to the ImprovementAgreement and was required to give the County notice 30 days prior to the expiration dateof the LOC. Mr. MacNamara noted the Engineering Department monitored in case ademand needed to be made if the LOC expiration date was nearing or requiring anamendment to address the issue.
In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. MacNamara stated a demand would bemade on the LOC if the work was not completed.
Commissioner Kesselring advised he would not support the request, noting ifdevelopers installed and completed all improvements prior to filing a plat it would eliminatethe procedures in question.
Commissioner Stone questioned how other counties addressed those particularcases.
Commissioner Payton stated he was convinced infrastructure should be requiredand put in place prior to avoid problems. He stated there was a $4 million commitment andthe public would expect the government to honor that commitment, in which the Countywas a participant.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerPayton, to direct staff to revise the existing Ordinance to state in order to achieve finalapproval of a plat was subject to constructing all subdivision improvements shown on theimprovement plans, noting it applied only to projects submitted after the date of adoptionand would not include existing projects or those in the process of development.
Steve Rudnianyn, NE 1st Avenue, appeared and questioned how it would affect thefinal plat recordation of Irish Acres. Commissioners Kesselring and Stone stated it wouldbe grandfathered in if approved.
Harvey Vandeven, SE 11th Place, appeared and stated bonding the subdivisions toachieve a goal would make it easier to plan. He expressed appreciation of a time line witha construction project. Mr. Vandeven stated the bank had certain requirements andguidelines to follow and briefly explained the process on borrowing bonding money fromthe bank and selling lots. He stated there was no reason to deny, noting GeneralDevelopment Corp. had its own bond that caused problems, which was no longer
February 20, 2007
Page 884, Book I
permitted. Mr. Vandeven stated there was no cost to the County or public, as the developerwas the only one who incurred a cost for a bond.
The motion failed by a vote of 2-3, with Chairman McClain, and CommissionersPayton and Stone voting nay.
Commissioner Payton suggested staff re-address issues conveyed by Mr.Vandeven.
A motion was made by Commissioner Stone, seconded by Commissioner Payton,to adopt Resolution 07-R-70 authorizing changes to the Subdivision ImprovementAgreement requirements. The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1, withCommissioner Kesselring voting nay.
Contracts & Agreements/Road Improvements - (7.E.) - County Attorney Wrightpresented the following recommendation from Chief Assistant County Attorney MacNamarato approve the Settlement Agreement for Condemnation of Property in regard to the SE110th Street Improvement Project:
Description/Background: As background, the County has engaged Special Counsel,Jim Spalla, Akerman Senterfitt, Tallahassee, for condemnation of necessary right-of-way for the SE 110th Street Improvement Project. Mr. Spalla recommendssettlement concerning Parcels 22, 22A, 24 and 24A. See attached memorandum.Budget Impact: Payment of Settlement amount and costs from budgeted funds.Recommended Action: The Board is requested to approve the attached Settlementand authorize Special Counsel to enter into the approved Settlement.A motion was made by Commissioner Fitos, seconded by Commissioner Kesselring,
to approve and authorize Special Counsel Spalla to enter into the Settlement Agreementregarding the SE 110th Street Improvement Project.
Commissioner Stone commented on the significant increase of the property valueswithin the last two years and questioned if there was a better offer.
Special Counsel Jim Spalla, representative of Akerman Senterfitt, Tallahassee,appeared and advised he thought it was the best offer, noting the case had been on appealonce, back to Circuit court and there was the possibility of another appeal. He statedcontinuing would only incur more costs, noting litigation had been ongoing for three years.Mr. Spalla suggested it was the best compromise at this point.
Commissioner Payton stated he understood residents needed to be reasonablycompensated for their property and with all issues involved, but not at the taxpayersexpense. Mr. Spalla stated it was a reasonable compromise between both parties in which80-90% usually settle out of court. He noted that even though the numbers were high andrelative to the amount claimed they were also within reason.
The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Contracts & Agreements/Utilities - (7.F.) - County Attorney Wright presented thefollowing recommendation from Chief Assistant County Attorney MacNamara to approvethe Settlement Agreement for Condemnation of Property in regard to the Stonecrest UtilityPlant Expansion Project:
Description/Background: As background, the County has engaged Special Counsel,Tracy A. Marshall and Marc D. Peltzman, Gray Robinson, Orlando, forcondemnation of necessary property for the Stonecrest Utility Plant ExpansionProject. See attached memorandum.
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 885
Budget Impact: Payment of Settlement amount and costs from budgeted funds.Recommended Action: The Board is requested to approve the attached Settlementand authorize Special Counsel to enter into the approved Settlement.A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,
to approve and authorize Special Counsel to enter into the Settlement Agreement regardingthe Stonecrest Utility Plant Expansion Project.
Commissioner Payton stated he would not support the motion due to the Plaintiffpublicly declaring he wanted to live on the property. The County in support offered toprovide the Plaintiff with municipal water and sewer and was given every opportunity toaccomplish what was offered. He stated the Plaintiff argued he only wanted a well.Commissioner Payton stated the valuations on the property did not even approximate thefigure of the settlement offer. Commissioner Stone concurred.
Special Counsel Tracy A. Marshall, representative of Gray Robinson, Orlando,appeared and stated the offer of the County was a point well taken. She stated from a legalstandpoint a Judge would not enforce it upon the Plaintiff. Ms. Marshall stated when thePlaintiff refused the County’s option, the County had no alternative but to acquire the wholeproperty. She noted the remaining property was put to good use for expansion of the pondand a buffer area around the other houses. Ms. Marshall stated the Plaintiff obtained anappraiser that opined to a value based on an opportunity to put in densities similar to theadjoining property and a reasonable probability of rezoning. She stated her firms appraiservalued the property as one resident per 5 acre lot to coincide with the current zoning. Ms.Marshall stated from a risk analysis there was a potential for a jury to believe or side withthe property owners appraisal value. She stated there was an additional $16,000 prior tohiring experts, legal fees and numerous other fees involved.
In response to Commissioner Stone, Ms. Marshall stated the previous offer did notinclude the attorney fees.
Commissioner Kesselring agreed that the property owner was taking advantage ofthe County. Commissioner Payton stated he did not think offers were admissible totestimony. Ms. Marshall stated the settlement offer would not be admissible or publicrecord. Commissioner Kesselring questioned if the County’s last appraisal would beadmissible. Ms. Marshall stated the appraisal consisted of all figures involved.Commissioner Payton stated he understood the logic, but was not in agreement.
The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 3-2, with Commissioners Paytonand Stone voting nay.
Commissioners/Roads, Miscellaneous - (12.A.) - Commissioner Fitos presented aletter of request received from Debbie Farr and Ken Lake, parents of Chad W. Lake askingthat a portion of CR 329 from Highway 441 to Highway 200A (also known as NEJacksonville Road) be renamed in honor of their son SSG Chad W. Lake who gave his lifein the war in Iraq.
Upon motion of Commissioner Fitos, seconded by Commissioner Kesselring, theBoard approved the request to rename a portion of CR 329 from Highway 441 to Highway200A (also known as NE Jacksonville road) be renamed as the “Chad W. Lake MemorialHighway”.
There was a recess at 1:05 p.m.The meeting reconvened at 2:02 p.m. with all members present, except
February 20, 2007
Page 886, Book I
Commissioner Payton.
Ordinances/Zoning - (14.) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of PublicationNo. A0773776 entitled “Notice of Intention to Consider Adoption of an Ordinance” publishedin the Star Banner newspaper on February 6, 2007. The Notice stated the Board wouldconsider adopting an ordinance approving zoning changes and Special Use Permits.
Zoning Director/Growth Management Bureau Chief Mike May, Planning DirectorDwight Ganoe, Site Planner Sam Martsolf, Senior Planner Chris Rison, Planners NataliaCox and Mark Ritchie were present.
Commissioner Payton arrived at 2:03 p.m.
Ordinances/Zoning - (14.) - Senior Planner Rison advised that seven petitions listedon the consent agenda were recommended for approval by both the Planning Departmentand Zoning Commission. It was noted that the Zoning Commission recommended approval,as follows:
Motion was made by Mr. Gaekwad, seconded by Mr. Fell, to approve the followingseven items on the Consent Agenda because they were recommended for approvalby the Planning Department, they had no written opposition within 300 feet, andthere was no opposition at the Zoning Commissioner meeting:1. 070203Z Amanda Stover-Perry B-2 to B-4 .292. 070204SU Shores Tabernacle, Inc. Special Use Permit in 4.82
R-1 and B-23. 070205SU Road 40 Outparcel LLC Special Use Permit in RAC 2.064. 070208Z Donald & Loretta Vining A-1 to B-2 1.05. 070210SU Ethel Stancil, Hale Stancil & Special Use Permit in 1.9
William Stancil, Trustees A-16. 070211Z Lauren Carlyle B-2 to RR-1 1.027. 070215SU On Top of the World Special Use Permit in PUD 37.05Motion carried by a vote of 7-0.Mr. Rison advised that no one had signed up to speak in opposition to the consent
agenda and as such it was still intact. He announced the names and petition numbers ofconsent agenda petitions 1 through 7.
Chairman McClain clarified that the Board was considering Consent agenda items14.A.1. through 14.A.7. and questioned whether there was any public comment.
There being no opposition, upon motion of Commissioner Kesselring, seconded byCommissioner Stone, the Board approved consent agenda petitions 1 through 7, based onPlanning Department staff findings and Zoning Commission recommendation that theproposed uses were compatible with the surrounding land uses, were consistent with theComprehensive Plan, and would not adversely affect the public interest, as follows:
Zoning - (14.A.) - 1. (Zoning Commission 070203Z - Consent) - The Board granteda petition by Amanda Stover-Perry, 7910 West Hwy 326, Ocala, FL, requesting a ZoningChange of the Marion County Land Development Code, Article 5, from B-2 (CommunityBusiness) to R-4 (Residential Mixed Use) for the intended use of placement of a mobilehome for residential purposes, and any other use permitted in an R-4 zone, on Parcel No.1461-001-012.
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 887
Resolutions/Zoning - (14.A.) - 2. (Z. C. 070204SU - Consent) - The Board adoptedResolution 07-R-71 granting a petition by Shores Tabernacle, Inc., P.O. Box 830656,Ocala, FL, requesting a Special Use Permit of the Marion County Land Development Code,Section 5.3, to remove previously imposed capacity condition (Resolution 04R-517), on daycare, preschool, and school in R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) and B-2 (Community Business)zones on Parcel No. 9008-000-02. Resolution 07-R-71 contained the following Conditions:
1. The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submittedconceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval.
2. The enrollment number of children shall not exceed the following: Day care(Ages 1-4): maximum of 300 children; Ages K-5: maximum of 300 children.
Resolution/Zoning - (14.A.) - 3. (Z. C. 070205SU - Consent) - The Board adoptedResolution 07-R-72 granting a petition by Road 40 Outparcel, LLC, 3007 Lemon Street,Tampa, FL, requesting a Special Use Permit of the Marion County Land DevelopmentCode, Section 5.3, for the purpose of parking recreational vehicles, under 5 tons, at a self-storage facility, in an RAC (Rural Activity Center) zone, on Parcel No. 21108-000-02.Resolution 07-R-72 contained the following Conditions:
1. The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submittedconceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval.
2. Recreational vehicle parking shall be limited to a maximum of twelve vehiclesin one row of parking as depicted on the submitted conceptual site plan.
3. There shall be no sale and/or rental of recreational vehicles.4. The project’s chain-link fencing shall be provided on the interior side of the
site’s required Type “E” Buffer (currently a minimum width of 5 feet, with amaximum of 4 trees per 100 LF, and a continuous double-staggeredhedgerow to be 60" high in two years) along SR 40, and opaque screeningshall be provided with the chain-link fencing (e.g., vinyl slats, screeningfabric, etc.).
Zoning - (14.A.) - 4. (Z. C. 070208Z - Consent) - The Board granted a petition byDonald and Loretta Vining, 6292 SE 96th Place Road, Belleview, FL, requesting a ZoningChange of the Marion County Land Development Code, Article 5, from A-1 (GeneralAgriculture) to B-2 (Community Business) for the intended use of any use permitted in aB-2 zone, on Parcel No. 46008-002-01.
Resolution/Zoning - (14.A.) - 5. (Z. C. 070210SU - Consent) - The Board adoptedResolution 07-R-73 granting a petition by Ethel H. Stancil, Hale R. Stancil & William H.Stancil, Trustees, 2901 NW 72nd Court, Ocala, FL, requesting a Special Use Permit of theMarion County Land Development Code, Section 5.3, for the purpose of allowing the saleof livestock feed and shavings for bedding in an A-1 (General Agriculture) zone, on aportion of Parcel No. 21604-000-01. Resolution 07-R-73 contained the following Conditions:
1. The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submittedconceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval.
2. Retail sales of materials from the site shall be limited to livestock feed andshavings for livestock bedding.
3. A paved driveway apron, appropriately permitted through the Marion CountyTransportation Department, shall be provided.
February 20, 2007
Page 888, Book I
4. A Type “E” Buffer shall be provided along the sale site’s NW 60th Avenuefrontage, while allowing for maintaining required sight-distances for the sitedriveway.
Zoning - (14.A.) - 6. (Z. C. 070211Z - Consent) - The Board granted a petition byLauren Carlyle, 576 Carlyle Road, Zebulon, NC, requesting a Zoning Change of the MarionCounty Land Development Code, Article 5, from B-2 (Community Business) to RR-1 (RuralResidential) for the intended use of construction of a residence, and any other usepermitted in an RR-1 zone, on Parcel No. 16653-010-01.
Zoning - (14.A.) - 7. (Z. C. 070215SU - Consent) - The Board adopted Resolution07-R-74 granting a petition by On Top of the World, 8447 SW 99 th Street Road, Ocala, FL,requesting a Special Use Permit of the Marion County Land Development Code, Section5.5.9, for the purpose of a wastewater treatment plant with inflow exceeding 5,000 gallonsper day in a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone, on a portion of Parcel No. 35300-000-00. Resolution 07-R-74 contained the following Conditions:
1. The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submittedconceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval.
2. The proposed development shall comply with the Springs Protection Zoneprovisions of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan and the LandDevelopment Code.
Zoning - (14.B.) - 1. (Z. C. 070207Z) - The Board considered a petition by Keith andCindy Tinsley, 3785 SE 66th Street, Ocala, FL, requesting a Zoning Change of the MarionCounty Land Development Code, Article 5, from R-4 (Residential Mixed Use) to A-1(General Agriculture) for the intended use of allowing a second residence on property, tobe used as a guest residence, and any other use permitted in an A-1 zone, on Parcel No.35815-028-01.
Located: US 441 south to SE 62nd Street, turn left, turns into SE 36th Avenue; to SE66th Street, turn left. The property is on the left at 3785 SE 66th Street.PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET: 0 OF 27 = 0%ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion was made by Ms. Shields-Mangram, seconded by Mr. Gaekwad, to agree with staff findings andrecommendation, and recommend denial of a Zoning Change from R-4 to A-1 forthe intended use of a second mobile home to be used as a guest residence, andany other use permitted in an A-1 zone. Motion carried by a vote of 7-0.Senior Planner Rison stated that based on analysis and findings staff recommended
denial of the rezoning, noting the Zoning Commission also recommended denial.The applicant was not present. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner
Stone, to deny the rezoning based on Planning Department staff and the ZoningCommission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was not compatible withthe surrounding land uses, was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and wouldadversely affect the public interest. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Zoning - (14.B.) - 2. (Z. C. 070212Z) - The Board considered a petition by182 MainStreet Realty, 33 Fieldstone Court, New City, NY, requesting a Zoning Change of the
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 889
Marion County Land Development Code, Article 5, from A-1 (General Agriculture) to B-2(Community Business) for the intended use of commercial development, and any other usepermitted in a B-2 zone, on Parcel Nos. 41200-065-00 & 41200-065-03.
Located: US 441 south to CR 484 in Belleview, turn right; to SW 16th Avenue, turnright. The properties are on the left at 13350 SW 16th Avenue.PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET: 1 OF 15 = 6%ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion was made by Ms. Shields-Mangram, seconded by Mr. Fell, to agree with staff findings and recommendation,and recommend approval of a Zoning Change from A-1 to B-2 for the intended useof any use permitted in a B-2 zone. Motion carried by a vote of 7-0.Senior Planner Rison stated that based on analysis and findings staff recommended
approval of the rezoning, noting the Zoning Commission also recommended approval.Steve Gray, NE 1st Avenue, attorney, representing the applicant was present. He
stated the property had a land use classification of Specialized Commerce District, whichby definition was limited to industrial and commercial uses. Mr. Gray noted it was not thenorthern most portion of the Commerce District and did not abut a rural area. He stated theB-2 zoning was less intrusive than a number of zoning categories and was consistent withthe area.
Mr. Gray stated the traffic analysis showed there was sufficient, if not substantialcapacity on that section of CR 475 (from CR 475B to CR 484). He requested the Boardapprove the Zoning Change based on those factors. Growth Management BureauChief/Zoning Director Mike May pointed out that the area discussed earlier by Mr. Dohertyin regard to the Hamlet just north of this property where a group of owners wanted to cometogether on small twenty acre parcels and extend the Specialized Commerce District,stating it was no longer a farm area. He stated the hamlet would most likely not bedeveloped as they too were looking for a Specialized Commerce District due to the noiseand traffic from I-75.
In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. May advised that the subject site waspreviously considered over a year ago and the discussion was centered on the accesspoint. Mr. May noted the access point was now at the top of the hill where there was a 60foot easement and traffic visibility was no longer an issue. Commissioner Kesselringquestioned whether access from SW 16th Avenue was still available. Mr. Gray stated hisclient was working to obtain access through Crossroads, but did have access at the top ofthe hill resolving the sight line issue. Mr. May noted parallel access was now being sought.Mr. Gray stated the parallel access would also serve the next parcel to the north that wasalready in the Specialized Commerce District. He noted from a planning viewpoint twoaccess points in that sector were preferable in order not to compress traffic in and out atthe signalized intersection.
Upon call for public comment, Shawn Doherty, SW 16th Avenue, stated he saw noproblems entering or exiting from the hill. He advised that he was in favor of the ZoningChange.
Doug Shearer, SE 85th Street, noted the issue was previously heard nine monthsago. He stated the road was too narrow and noted opposition to the change.
Denver Ellison, SE 15th Avenue, stated he owned lots west of the subject site andsaw no reason the request should not be approved, noting it was a commerce area.
Mariam Cook, SW 27th Avenue, commented on her work to preserve the Shadyarea which was considered a gateway to the greenway. She requested the Board to deny
February 20, 2007
Page 890, Book I
the request and if not, to postpone the matter along with any others issues that would havean impact on the rural and agricultural character of the area. Ms. Cook noted the PlanningDepartment was working on the Greenway Corridor Study and the March meeting wasscheduled to take place at the Belleview City Hall. She stated CR 475 and 475A could bothbe designated as toll roads and would derive income. Ms. Cook again requested that theZoning Change be denied or at least postponed.
Michelle Shearer, SE 85th Street, member of the Shady Greenway ConservationAlliance, stated she agreed with comments made by Mr. Shearer and Ms. Cook. Sheadvised that a letter was dictated to her over the telephone by Patti Orr, who also opposedthe Zoning Change, which she read into the record. (Ed. Note: The dictated letter was notpresented to the Deputy Clerk for the record.)
Ms. Shearer presented a two page, two sided document entitled, “The MarionCounty Board of County Commissioners Planning Department Invites You to Attend”,regarding the Greenway Study Area Community Meeting to be held on Thursday, March15, 2007 (5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) at the Belleview City Hall. She commented on the needto get the survey’s out to the public for input. (Visit The Marion County website at“www.marioncountyfl.org”, to complete a survey of the study area.) Ms. Shearerrecommended that the Zoning Change request be delayed until after receiving input on theCorridor Study.
Tammy Reed, SE 91st Place, stated she agreed with the Shearer’s and Ms. Cookand requested the Board not rush into a decision.
Mr. Gray stated he was requesting the Board to comply with the terms of theComprehensive Plan, noting the County Commission had already designated this parcelas part of the Specialized Commerce District, which was for commercial and industrialuses. He noted the property was zoned A-1 and if re-zoned the only categories availablewould be commercial and industrial. Mr. Gray advised that the Florida Supreme Court hadvisited this very issue in a landmark case years ago in a Daytona Beach case, whichdetermined that Comprehensive Plans were a map and all were entitled to rely upon themtherefore (if not approving a zoning that was allowed under the land use) the burden ofproof was not on the applicant, but rather the County to prove that the zoning request wasnot correct. He stated the concern with access was more of a sight line issue, which wasresolved, and parallel access to provide access for more than one parcel and believed theZoning Change should be approved.
Commissioner Kesselring stated the Comprehensive Plan did plan for some type ofcommercial node around I-75. He noted concern with access to SW 16th Avenue and ifapproved all traffic access should be internally directed onto the two existing access points.He addressed earlier comments regarding the possibility of extending the commerce districtout into other areas and advised he would not support extending it beyond what was shownin the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Kesselring stated it was important to know thatwhat was being done was concentrating this type of growth around the intersection, whichneeded to happen, noting the general area needed to be protected by not extendingfurther.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerPayton, to grant the rezoning based on Planning Department staff and the ZoningCommission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with thesurrounding land uses, was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would notadversely affect the public interest.
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 891
Commissioner Kesselring questioned when would be the most appropriate time toaddress the access issue. Mr. Rison advised it would be during the major site planconsideration for proposal to develop the property. Commissioner Kesselring stated hewould not be in favor of additional access points along SW 16th Avenue. Mr. Mayquestioned turn lanes in order not to impede traffic. Chairman McClain advised that he wasnot in favor of more curb cuts and access onto SW 16th Avenue.
Commissioner Fitos noted the proper infrastructure had to be in place beforebeginning to build out. She commented on the appropriateness of the land in terms ofwhether or not the infrastructure was in place rather than not going against theComprehensive Plan designation for the property and absent that she would not supportapproval. In response to Commissioner Kesselring, Commissioner Fitos stated concernwith traffic, noting the signal at the CR 484 and CR 475 intersection crossed over at SW16th Avenue. Commissioner Fitos commented on problems with the curb cuts on 16th
Avenue. Chairman McClain noted the only curb cut on SW 16th Avenue along that sectionwas at SE 134th Street. Commissioner Kesselring advised that the intent of the directionwas not to allow any additional curb cuts, noting there was capacity on the road and waterand sewer was available. He stated from an infrastructure standpoint capacity wasavailable.
The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Fitosvoting nay.
Zoning - (14.B.) - 3. (Z. C. 070209Z) - The Board considered a petition by IntensiveCare Church of God – James Percy, James Shanks and Donny Richardson, Trustees,15004 South Hwy 441, Summerfield, FL, requesting a Zoning Change of the Marion CountyLand Development Code, Article 5, from A-1 (General Agriculture) to B-2 (CommunityBusiness) for the intended use of any use permitted in a B-2 zone, on Parcel No. 47671-000-01.
Located: US 441 south. The property is on the right, just south of the intersection ofSunset Harbor Road, at 15004 South US Hwy 441.PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET: 0 OF 11 = 0%ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion was made by Mr. Meadows,seconded by Mr. Lord, to disagree with staff findings and recommendation, andrecommend approval of a Zoning Change from A-1 to B-2 for the intended use ofany use permitted in a B-2 zone, based on the following findings of fact:1. Is compatible with the surrounding land uses.2. Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan.3. Will not adversely affect the public interest. Motion to approve carried by a vote of 7-0. Senior Planner Rison stated that based on analysis and findings staff recommended
denial of the rezoning, noting the Zoning Commission recommended approval. He notedthe site was subject to a Developer’s Agreement, which required submission of aconceptual plan and noted at the time of staff review the conceptual plan had not beenpresented, but did have a survey of existing conditions. In response to CommissionerKesselring, Mr. Rison advised that he was not aware of receipt of the conceptual plan.Commissioner Payton questioned prior discussion regarding the parcel. Mr. Rision advisedthat the subject site was part of a series of plan amendment sites that were heard last year.
David MacKay, SW College Road, attorney, representing the applicant was present.
February 20, 2007
Page 892, Book I
He presented a copy of an existing site plan for the church, noting the Dollar General,which was being constructed immediately south of the subject parcel was highlighted inpink. Mr. MacKay noted there was exiting B-2 zoning classifications in the area. He advisedthat the Dollar General was installing a turn lane going North on Highway 441 and createdcross access along the front. Mr. MacKay noted the existing site plan presented by thechurch was approved with an existing parallel access, which was highlighted in yellow. Hestated the title search did not find a recorded parallel access agreement, which must havebeen approved prior to when recordings began for those type of documents. Mr. MacKaynoted it was included in the minutes of the Development Review Committee (DRC) fromwhen the site plan approval was discussed requiring a 29 foot parallel access as shown onthe site plan. He pointed out that the subject parcel was just approved for B-2 zoning onthe consent portion of the agenda.
Mr. MacKay stated the church was essentially requesting the right to use an existingstructure for commercial purposes. He stated when the Comprehensive Plan change wasrequested the entire parcels under contract to the adjoining property line to the northcontaining about 35 acres, which went up to Sunset Harbor Road. Mr. MacKay stated theprimary concern was what would happen over that property combined with this propertyand a preliminary or conceptual site plan was requested as part of the Developer’sAgreement prior to zoning. He advised that at this time the contracts with that owner havebeen terminated and the church at present intends to keep its property for futuredevelopment and expansion. Mr. MacKay noted the church was interested in obtainingzoning to utilize the property for commercial business. He stated the request essentiallyrelied on the site plan and requested it be considered the conceptual site plan required,which showed the existing driveways, parking, parallel access, median cut on Highway 441(where currently under construction), turn lane (for the Dollar General) to existing B-2property and would allow access for the church to use the existing building. Mr. MacKaystated the request was not to expand or build new buildings, but for a zoning that wouldallow use of the existing structure. Mr. MacKay stated at such time the church may comeback with any development plan on its property or the adjacent property (8+ acres), whichwas included in the land use plan amendment. He understood the need for a concept ofthe site, where development would occur, the access/management, which at this pointwould not be connected to the north unless that property was developed first in which caseit would have to provide parallel access. Mr. MacKay stated the property would not bedeveloped in connection or conjunction with that owner as the contract was terminated acouple of weeks ago by that owner. He advised that the request was for B-2 for the small1.08 acre parcel including the existing structure.
Chairman McClain questioned if staffs recommendation was based on theDeveloper’s Agreement and if the recommendation would be different if the Agreement wasterminated. Mr. Rison advised that potentially for this small parcel he did not see that staffwould have a significant issue with it at that point.
There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner
Stone, to grant the rezoning based on the Zoning Commission findings andrecommendation that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses,was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the publicinterest.
Commissioner Stone noted his disappointment that the adjoining parcel to the north
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 893
was not included in previous Master Plan discussion. He stated he would like to see whatwould happen with the other parcel, which may not be fair to this property owner.Commissioner Stone questioned if the Developer’s Agreement would be changed. Mr.Rison stated more interpretation to the Commission who were third parties of thedevelopment to determine if this small portion would be acceptable and the terms of theDeveloper’s Agreement would still be in effect for the remainder of the property. ChairmanMcClain noted the building was already existing.
Planning Director Dwight Ganoe stated the Developer’s Agreement was drafted withthe intent of looking at the entire parcel and it was not considered that this small portionwould be presented by itself for a separate zoning consideration. He stated no conceptualplan was submitted with the application so staff had no alternative but to deny the request.Mr. Ganoe stated there was no need to amend or change the Developer’s Agreement if theBoard wanted to accept the conceptual plan as presented for this specific parcel. Inresponse to Commissioner Payton, Mr. Ganoe advised that he had not seen the conceptualplan presented by Mr. MacKay. Commissioner Payton stated it would be difficult to makea recommendation without having reviewed the conceptual plan. Mr. Ganoe advised thatthe Developer’s Agreement required that a conceptual plan be submitted with the re-zoningapplication. Commissioner Payton stated the Board relied heavily upon staffsrecommendation and if staff was not given the opportunity to reflect on the conceptual planthen it would be difficult to provide an informed opinion, given that he would not be able tosupport the motion until staff had time to review the conceptual plan and present aninformed recommendation.
Chairman McClain stated he would not support the motion for the same reason.Commissioner Payton suggested that Mr. MacKay consider continuing the matter until thenext zoning hearing (March 20, 2007). Mr. MacKay stated he would continue the matter,but noted that he scanned and emailed the site plan on January 16, 2007 to the PlanningDepartment staff in response to questions and errors in the mapping staff had mailed. Henoted the conceptual plan depicted the parallel accesses which was clearly marked andapproved by the Development Review Committee (DRC), the Dollar General access point,and included an excerpt of the DRC meeting minutes referencing the project number wherethe parallel access was granted to the County. Mr. MacKay advised that he had theinformation with him today, but would not object to continuing to allow staff to review themap as opposed to what was supplied in January. Chairman McClain advised that wouldbe the best way to address the matter.
Commissioner Stone withdrew his second to the motion. Commissioner Kesselringadvised that what was provided today was sufficient, but understood the process andwithdrew his motion.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerPayton, to continue consideration of the matter to the next regularly scheduled zoningmeeting (March 20, 2007). The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Chairman McClain questioned whether the issue could be placed at the beginningof the agenda. Mr. May advised that it would appear after the consent agenda.
Zoning - (14.B.) - 4. (Z. C. 070206SU) - The Board considered a petition by WendyHolland and Sylvie Ganas, 14871 NE 110th Court Road, Fort McCoy, FL, requesting aSpecial Use of the Marion County Land Development Code, Section 5.2, for the purposeof allowing livestock, 1 miniature donkey and 1 Nubian goat, as pets in an R-1 (Single
February 20, 2007
Page 894, Book I
Family Dwelling) zone, on Parcel No. 0870-000-002.Located: SR 40 east to CR 315, turn left; to CR 316 in Fort McCoy, turn left; to NE110th Court Road, turn right. The property is on the right at 14871 NE 110th CourtRoad.
PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET: 0 OF 14 = 0%ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion was made by Ms. Shields-Mangram, seconded by Mr. Oliver, to disagree with staff findings andrecommendation, and recommend approval with Alternate Approval Conditions 1through 5 and deleting No. 6, for the purpose of keeping one miniature donkey andone Nubian goat as pets in an R-1 zone, based on the following findings of fact:1. Is compatible with the surrounding land uses.2. Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan.3. Will not adversely affect the public interest.Motion carried by a vote of 7-0.Senior Planner Rison stated that based on analysis and findings staff recommended
denial of the Special Use Permit, noting the Zoning Commission recommended approvalsubject to the Alternate Approval Conditions with some modification. He stated that if theBoard granted the Special Use Permit, staff recommended the following Alternate ApprovalConditions:
1. The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submittedconceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval.
2. The keeping of animals/livestock is limited to one (1) miniature donkey andone (1) Nubian goat.
3. Open pasture area for each animal/livestock shall comply with the openpasture standards and requirements as provided in the RE, ResidentialEstate, zoning category for the keeping of livestock.
3. Adequate vegetation shall be maintained for grazing each animal/livestock.4. The Special Use Permit shall terminate in the event there is any division or
subdivision of the property from its current overall 3.3 acre size.5. The Special Use Permit shall run with the owners and not with the property.6. The Special Use Permit shall be limited to 3 years, at the end of which, the
applicant may request an extension of the use.(Ed. Note: There are two number “3's” in the above Alternate Approval Conditions.)Commissioner Kesselring questioned whether there was anyone present who
opposed the petition. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,
to adopt a Resolution granting the Special Use Permit with the Alternate ApprovalConditions as recommended by the Zoning Commission based on findings andrecommendation that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses,was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the publicinterest.
Commissioner Payton stated he would not support the motion because every timelivestock was allowed in an R-1 zone it came back to haunt the Board. He advised that itwould have been different if the animals had been there for a year or two and someone hadjust begun to complain. Commissioner Payton stated he would hold to the philosophy ofnot allowing animals in R-1 areas. Commissioner Stone agreed, noting it was difficult tomonitor. He stated the only time it was monitored was when complaints were received,
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 895
which he preferred to avoid.The motion failed by a vote of 2-3, with Commissioners Payton, Stone and Fitos
voting nay. The applicant addressed comments made and questioned why she wasted $300 to
file the petition when she could have done what she wanted behind their backs and takenher chances. Commissioner Stone noted that Code Enforcement may disagree. ChairmanMcClain warned the applicant not to do so, as the Board would remember the discussion.The applicant advised that she would not obtain pets that she would have to get rid of later.
A motion was made by Commissioner Stone, seconded by Commissioner Payton,to deny the Special Use Permit based on Planning Department staff findings andrecommendation that the proposed use was not compatible with the surrounding land uses,was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would adversely affect the publicinterest. The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 3-2, with Chairman McClainand Commissioner Kesselring voting nay.
Resolutions/Zoning - (14.B.) - 5. (Z. C. 070201Z) and (14.B.) - 6. (Z. C. 070202SU) -Mr. Rison advised that the next two petitions (14.B.5. and 14.B.6.) were the same site andwas initially a re-zoning request followed by a Special Use Permit.
(14.B.) - 5. (Z. C. 070201Z) The Board considered a request by Marion County, 601SE 25th Avenue, Ocala, FL, requesting a Zoning Change of the Marion County LandDevelopment Code, Article 5, from A-1 (General Agriculture) to G-U (Government Use), forthe intended use of a staffed solid waste recycling center, and any other use permitted ina G-U zone, on Parcel No. 07316-000-00.
Located: US 441 north to CR 329, turn left; go approximately 2.25 miles.Theproperty is on the left, on the NW corner of the intersection of NW 35th Court Road.(14.B.) - 6. (Z. C. 070202SU) - The Board considered a petition by Marion County,
601 SE 25 th Avenue, Ocala, FL, requesting a Special Use Permit of the Marion CountyZoning Code, Section 5.3, for the purpose of a staffed solid waste recycling center in a G-U(Government Use) zone, on Parcel No. 07316-000-00.
Located: US 441 north to CR 329, turn left; go approximately 2.25 miles.Theproperty is on the left, on the NW corner of the intersection of NW 35th Court Road.PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET: 5 of 15 = 33%ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion was made by Mr. Meadowsseconded by Mr. Lord, to disagree with staff findings and recommendation, andrecommend denial of a Zoning Change from A-1 to G-U and a Special Use Permitin a G-U zone for the purpose of a staffed Marion County recycling center, basedon the following findings of fact:1. Is not compatible with the surrounding land uses.2. Is not consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan.3. Will adversely affect the public interest. Motion to deny carried by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Meadows said because the Countyowns the property was not a good reason to place the recycling center at thislocation. The County should look for another site. Senior Planner Rison stated that based on analysis and findings staff recommended
approval of the Special Use Permit, noting the Zoning Commission recommended denial.He advised that staff recommended the following Conditions:
1. The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted
February 20, 2007
Page 896, Book I
conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval.2. A modified Land Development Code Type “B” Buffer (minimum 25 feet wide,
with a minimum of 5 trees and 30 shrubs per 100 LF with a minimum 6' highchain-link fence including privacy slats) shall be provided along the subjectproperty’s eastern, western and northern boundaries.
3. A Land Development Code Type “E” Buffer (minimum 5 feet wide, with aminimum of 4 trees and continuous double-staggered hedgerow to reach 60"in 2 years) shall be provided along the subject property’s frontage along CR329, allowing for driveway entrance sight-distances.
Commissioner Kesselring questioned whether the Petitions had been withdrawn. Mr.Rison advised that he was unaware of the requests being withdrawn. Commissioner Paytonnoted concern with the recycling center applications coming forth when the Board waslooking to readdress the matter in the near future.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerPayton, to deny the Zoning Change 14.B.5. (070201Z) based on the Zoning Commissionfindings and recommendation that the proposed use was not compatible with thesurrounding land uses, was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and wouldadversely affect the public interest.
In response to Commissioner Stone, Commissioner Kesselring stated the Board asthe applicant could withdraw or deny the petitions. Commissioner Kesselring noted publiccomment was not needed. Chairman McClain questioned whether there was anyone inattendance who supported the request. He stated those in favor would be given anopportunity to address the Board. There was no public comment.
The motion was unanimously approved by the Board. Chairman McClain clarified that the petitions were denied and the recycling center
would not be happening anytime soon. A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner
Payton, to deny the Special Use Permit 14.B.6. (070202SU) based on the ZoningCommission findings and recommendation that the proposed use was not compatible withthe surrounding land uses, was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and wouldadversely affect the public interest. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Resolutions/Zoning - (14.B.) - 7. (Z. C. 070214SU) - The Board considered a petitionby Raymond and Donna Scott, 17750 SE Hwy 42, Weirsdale, FL, requesting a Special UsePermit of the Marion County Land Development Code, Section 5.9.5, for the purpose ofconstruction of a 180-foot communications tower & facility in an A-1 (General Agriculture)zone, on Parcel No. 50146-001-00.
Located: US 441 south to CR 42, turn left; go approximately 7.7 miles to theproperty on the right, at 17750 SE Hwy 42.PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET: 2 OF 8 = 25%ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion was made by Mr. Fell,seconded by Mr. Meadows, to agree with staff findings and recommendation, andrecommend approval of a 180 ft. monopole wireless communication facility andcompound, in an A-1 zone. Motion carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Gaekwad votingno.Senior Planner Rison stated that based on analysis and findings staff recommended
approval of the Special Use Permit, noting the Zoning Commission also recommended
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 897
approval. He advised that staff recommended the following Conditions:1. The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted
conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval.2. The maximum height of the proposed telecommunications tower is to be
180', with tower attachments/appurtenances (e.g., antennas, dishes, etc.) notexceeding 10' above the tower height.
3. A new/updated driveway permit shall be obtained from the TransportationDepartment. The applicant shall be responsible for completing any permitrequired driveway improvements/upgrades with development of the tower.
4. Construction of the telecommunications tower shall be complete, or subjectto an issued un-expired building permit, within 2 years after the date of theapproval of this Special Use Permit. If the tower is not completed and notsubject to an issued un-expired building permit within 2 years, the SpecialUse Permit shall terminate.
Bill Howard, EQV Development LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, development agentsfor Braifon Towers, LLC, was present. He introduced Andrew and Albert Ward, membersand owners of Braifon Towers. Mr. Howard advised that the proposal was designed toprovide essential wireless service for a 5.5 mile area along CR/Highway 42. He commentedon exhibits attached to the application in terms of existing coverage and what was tryingto be accomplished. Mr. Howard noted the radio frequency map (under Tab 7 of thenotebook entitled, “Braifon Towers, LLC”, which was presented as part of the application)addressed facilities along CR 42 and were representations of the coverage available fromexisting communication towers in the area (with blue = in building coverage, red = in vehiclecoverage, and green = outdoor coverage). He stated there were two towers to the west andtwo towers to the east with a 5.5 plus mile stretch of road on CR 42 and because of thefacilities, topography and vegetation there was no wireless service available. Mr. Howardstated he worked with Planning Department staff regarding the requirements of the MarionCounty Code when the site design began. He advised that government owned propertieswere first reviewed, noting the only one in the area was the Stanton/Weirsdale ElementarySchool, which would duplicate services already available. Mr. Howard stated the propertyowned by the Scott’s was particularly suited and located to make the successfulconnections along the 5.5 mile area and provide comprehensive and dependable service.He described the proposed site and noted the request was for a 180 foot monopole tower.Mr. Howard noted the importance of the monopole design to be located in the center of theScott property with a 150 foot collapse zone. He stated the tower was set back full towerheight, plus 25 feet from all property corners and was entirely self-contained. Mr. Howardnoted the tower was 340 feet away from the nearest residence and would have threeseparate landscape buffers between the base of the 60 foot by 60 foot compound and theadjoining property. He advised that the tower was designed to accommodate a total of fourwireless carriers, which was twice the capacity required by the Code.
Mr. Howard addressed regulatory compliance, noting one of the things that had beena severe constraint in the area was aviation activities. He noted a letter dated, March 2,2006 from the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Airspace Branch, (under Tab 6)included a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. Mr. Howard noted that John Love(Love’s Field) appeared before the Zoning Commission and stated he had no oppositionto the tower.
Mr. Howard addressed public safety and *69 features, noting the facility in the
February 20, 2007
Page 898, Book I
proposed location would become a critical part of the Marion County infrastructure andcommented on the events within the last two weeks (recent tornado’s) to determine theimportance of the facility. He requested that the application be approved by the Board,noting the Conditions were acceptable to Braifon Towers, LLC.
Upon call for public comment, Albert Ward, McLean, Virginia, advised that he andhis wife were presently building a house near the tower site. He stated they were alsopartners of the company requesting approval to construct the tower. Mr. Ward advised thathe was very familiar with the Highway 42 area, noting he developed Braithwaite Park andspent a month or two there every year. He noted his cellular telephone was unreliable inthe area. Mr. Ward commented on a questionnaire sent to area residents regarding theircellular telephone service. He read letters from three members of the Braithwaite Parkcommunity who supported the request for the monopole tower. (Ed. Note: The letters werenot presented to the Deputy Clerk for the record.)
Commissioner Kesselring questioned whether anyone was opposed to the request.Chairman McClain advised that there were.
Phyllis Ward, McLean, Virginia, commented on interviews with firemen who advisedCR 42 was one of the worst areas for accidents. She stated it was important to provide theservices.
Robert Gosche, SE 175th Terrace Road, Weirsdale, stated he lived within 500 feetof the proposed tower. He noted the cellular phone usage in the area was bad, but had nocomplaints. Mr. Gosche stated the Scott’s property was not the only property available thatwould provide service to the area. He stated the proposed site was the wrong place toplace a monopole tower, noting the Ward’s owned 200 acres to the east and suggested thetower be placed on their property. Mr. Gosche noted his concerns with health issues andrequested the Board to deny the request.
David MacKay, SW College Road, stated he was speaking on behalf of the farmowned by him and his parents, which was adjacent to the subject site. He advised that hehad no particular issue with the request, but asked for consideration to install the type ofmonopole that looked like rust or a tree trunk, and not one that glistened silver, for estheticpurposes.
Dorothy Hull, SE Highway 42, stated there was already a tower on CR 42 nearHighway 441 and there was no need for another. She questioned the need for a cellularphone as opposed to a regular telephone. Ms. Hull advised that she was opposed to thetower request.
Doug Shearer, SE 85th Street, stated additional phone coverage would be nice forthe area. He stated the tower was a good idea.
Mr. Howard re-addressed the location and noted the FCC placed limitations as tohow much power could be emitted from telecommunication towers. He noted constraintsdue to air traffic control prevented the tower from being moved further east. Mr. Howardaddressed health issues in regard to radiation and stated for the record for assurances tothose individuals present that because the tower was non-Ionizing ElectromagneticFrequency (EMF) rays, it was the same as one would get from a computer monitor,television, microwave, etc. and noted more EMF radiation was emitted from florescentlighting than from standing at the base of the proposed tower. He commented on residentialdevelopment to the southwest and east of the site, noting cellular phone had become aubiquitous way of life. Mr. Howard stated in 1996 when the Federal TelecommunicationsAct was passed, it was with the design that the carriers be permitted to build out a
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 899
nationwide system, which became Federal policy and was repeated in the Marion CountyCode. He advised that in regard to aesthetics the Code stated the towers would eithermaintain a galvanized steel finish, concrete or be painted a color so as to reduce visualobtrusiveness. Mr. Howard stated the galvanized finish was proposed for the tower andalong with the design offered the minimal visual impact that complied with the Code.
In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. Howard advised that the County Codestrongly suggested the galvanized finish be used for the monopole, noting the tower wasmanufactured that way and offered the most wear protection. Mr. Howard noted a non-galvanized finish would cause rust and increase maintenance and visual effects.
Mr. Stone questioned whether there were towers located on the Florida Sand Mineproperty, which was across the street from the proposed site. Mr. May advised the sandmine operated a small truck type radio frequency. Mr. Howard advised that discussion washeld with the sand mine operation, noting they were not interested in the tower. Hecommented on communication issues by the Fire Department located on CR 42 and notedan interest in working with Braifon to install repeaters for Fire and Emergency Rescue atthe facility. Commissioner Stone questioned whether an 800 MHz tower would be neededin the area.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring to deny the Special Use Permitbased on findings and recommendation that the proposed use was not compatible with thesurrounding land uses, was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and wouldadversely affect the public interest. The motion died for lack of a second.
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by Commissioner Stone,to adopt Resolution 07-R-75 granting the Special Use Permit based on PlanningDepartment staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that theproposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses, was consistent with theComprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest.
Commissioner Kesselring stated cellular phones were not absolutely essential andif coverage was desired, individuals should move to where there was coverage available.He stated there were alternatives to installing large scale, tall structures, particularly in ruralareas of the County. Commissioner Kesselring noted the issue was cost and noted he wasreluctant to approve as cellular phone receivers could be placed on telephone poles, etc.which was more appropriate. The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 3-2, withCommissioners Kesselring and Fitos voting nay.
Zoning - (14.C.) - 1. - (Z. C. 070213Z ) - Zoning Director May advised that thepetition by RLR Investments, LLC, 600 Gillam Road, Wilmington, OH and Anthony Selhost,6131 South Betsie River Road, Interlochen, MI, was withdrawn. It was noted the requestwas for a Zoning Change of the Marion County Land Development Code, Article 5, fromA-1 (General Agriculture) to A-3 (Residential Agricultural Estate) for the intended use ofresidential development, and any other use permitted in an A-3 zone, on Parcel Nos. 1261-000-000, 12669-000-01, 12669-000-02, 12669-000-03, 12669-000-04 and 12669-000-05.
Utilities/Zoning - (14.D.) - 1. - (Z. C. 060905Z) - Greg Flanagan, SE Maricamp Road,attorney representing Smithbeck, LLC appeared in relation to a Zoning Change from A-1(General Agriculture) to R-E (Residential Estate) for the intended use of any use permittedin an R-E zone on Parcel No. 29687-001-00 to request clarification of the motion made bythe Board of County Commissioners at its meeting on Tuesday, October 17, 2006.
February 20, 2007
Page 900, Book I
Commissioner Kesselring noted that Mr. Flanagan had spoken to eachCommissioner individually and questioned the current plan. Mr. Flanagan stated it waseconomically unfeasible to develop nine one acre units. Commissioner Kesselringquestioned whether the request was for four or two. Mr. Flanagan stated the request wasfor two and split one time into a three acre parcel with a house and barn on it and sellparcels from the seven acres. He requested the Developer’s Agreement requirements berescinded in order to sell the parcels.
Commissioner Kesselring stated if the Developer’s Agreement was rescinded andthe property was re-zoned there was nothing to keep the applicant from doing somethingdifferent than what was presented, not that he necessarily would, but another owner may.He questioned why the applicant would not simply enter into a Developer’s Agreementstating the property would be split twice. Mr. Flanagan stated the previous proposedDeveloper’s Agreement was for four lots, with no lot being smaller than two acres in size.He stated the subject site was some distance from existing water and sewer connections,which would cost a great deal of money to extend services to the property. Mr. Flanaganstated there was some dissension between the City of Ocala and Marion County as to whowould actually supply the services. He advised that his clients were only going to split theproperty into the two pieces and to enter into a Developer’s Agreement that the propertywould only be divided twice would eliminate any real marketability. CommissionerKesselring advised that was the only way to obtain his vote.
Commissioner Payton proposed to assume that the request had never been broughtbefore the Board in the first place, then the applicant would be entitled to a one-timedivision. Mr. May advised that under the A-1 zoning classification the applicant would havebeen entitled to a one-time division, but being zoned R-E it would have been a familydivision, which was a parcel of record. Commissioner Payton reiterated that had theapplicant done nothing at all, they would have been entitled to the family division clause ora one-time division. Mr. May noted the property was zoned R-E and could be split one time.
In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. May advised that had the propertyremained A-1 the applicant would have been able to do a family division, but since theproperty was re-zoned R-E and because it was urban expansion the property could be splitone time and then again. In itself the family division was still allowed in the urban area R-Ezoned area. Commissioner Payton noted the property could be split a maximum of fourtimes. Mr. May advised it was dependent upon the number of family members.
Commissioner Kesselring stated with the R-E zoning and no Developer’s Agreementthe door was left wide open for abuse, not necessarily that it was the intent, but it hadoccurred. He noted that he had no concern with Low Density Residential as long as utilitieswere provided, but without the Developer’s Agreement there was no assurance that thedivisions would not occur and they would not be on well and septic tanks. CommissionerKesselring stated the option was available if all that was wanted was to divide the propertytwice.
Mr. Flanagan stated his clients had looked into the issue of family division, but didnot feel that it applied in this instance and requested a zoning change to R-E so that it couldbe split as a matter of right. He stated discussion had been held with the County throughstaff with regard to developing the property to a much higher intensity before the trueeconomic cost and logistics. Mr. Flanagan noted that he was not present during earlierdiscussion to develop the property into nine lots no smaller than one acre in size, whichwas not economically feasible. He advised that the applicants would sign a Developer’s
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 901
Agreement that would restrict the division of the property into no more than four parcelswith no single parcel being smaller than two acres in size. Mr. Flanagan stated if theproperty was ever divided into more than four parcels or divided to cause any parcel to beless than two acres in size then central water and sewer would be required. He stated therequest was to allow the property to be split into four pieces with no parcel being smallerthan two acres in size without the requirement of central water and sewer and would bewilling to sign a Developer’s Agreement. Mr. Flanagan noted that the Developer’sAgreement was never executed due to some confusion.
Commissioner Payton questioned if the property would revert back to its original useif the Developer’s Agreement was not executed. Mr. May stated the zoning was grantedsubject to the Developer’s Agreement, which required central water and sewer.Commissioner Kesselring noted that may be correct, if the Developer’s Agreement was notexecuted then the zoning classification would remain unchanged and would revert back toA-1 zoning. Mr. Wright stated the zoning was changed. Commissioner Kesselring statedthe zoning change was subject to the Developer’s Agreement. Mr. May advised there couldbe no conditional zoning and the Developer’s Agreement was required to develop at ahigher density. Mr. Flanagan addressed the feasibility of providing water and sewer to theproposed nine unit subdivision.
Commissioner Kesselring commented on other available options to appropriatelytreat nitrates which may provide a solution. Commissioner Payton advised that he did notwant to work the issues out at this point and in fairness to the applicant a request to revertback to the original zoning, which may have to come back through the original zoningapplication. He stated given the fact that the applicant did not understand the process hewould be willing to entertain an application to re-zone the property back to its originalzoning classification. Commissioner Payton recommended that the applicant be instructedto present an application to re-zone the property back to A-1. Commissioner Kesselringadvised that the zoning change would require advertisement, but the Board could waivethe fee.
Mr. Flanagan advised that the applicant would be willing to enter into a covenantrequiring that the properties hook up to central water and sewer when it became available.Commissioner Kesselring stated he was receptive to a Developer’s Agreement thatprovided for both short-term and long-term connection. Mr. Flanagan stated the applicantwas seeking clarification and a four parcel division, subject to community services. Headvised that he would review the matter with his clients engineer to determine feasibilityand present findings to the Board for consideration. Commissioner Kesselring agreed thatwould be better than reverting back to the A-1 zoning.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring clarifying the Developer’sAgreement would include the decentralized enhanced system that would allow up to ninelots with the provision that when central water and sewer became available the units wouldconnect. Commissioner Payton addressed Code requirements in relation to water andsewer connections. Mr. Flanagan advised that both water and sewer was 1/4 mile from thesubject site. Commissioner Kesselring commented on the cost to provide services for asmall subdivision, but the intent of the motion was to prevent normal septic tanks.Commissioner Stone questioned how it would affect the primary or secondary SpringsProtection Zones. Chairman McClain suggested central water be required with anenhanced septic system. He questioned whether fire flow was available.
Lewis Bryant, GPI, applicant’s engineer, stated the closest line that would provide
February 20, 2007
Page 902, Book I
fire flow was approximately 1,320 feet away. In response to Chairman McClain, Mr. Bryantadvised that the nearest subdivision was only a four-inch line and could not be enhancedto provide fire flow.
Commissioner Payton seconded the motion for discussion purposes. He noted thatthe Code had certain requirements and was not sure the Board was in a position to waiveCode requirements. Commissioner Kesselring advised that was correct, but noted that welland septic tanks were permitted on one acre lots which would not violate Coderequirements.
Chairman McClain stated he would be willing to allow more density with the caveatthat water and sewer be provided. He questioned why the applicant was dividing theproperty. Mr. Flanagan advised that the applicant had a prospective buyer. ChairmanMcClain suggested that the applicant may want to continue the matter to considerdiscussion, noting the consensus was to allow more density of somewhere between fourto nine units, subject to a decentralized system. Commissioner Kesselring advised that theBoard was trying to help the applicant while addressing the treatment of sewer effluent.Commissioner Payton commented on the amount of septic systems in the area.Commissioner Kesselring noted that additional density may be needed to make thesystems cost effective. Mr. Bryant noted the request to consider the decentralized sewersystem and questioned the water. Chairman McClain stated individual wells would probablybe installed as water was too far away. Commissioner Kesselring noted that was of lessconcern from his standpoint. Commissioner Payton agreed with individual wells.
Chairman McClain noted the consensus was to consider the decentralized systemand individual wells to provide more density. He advised that the matter would be continuedto the next regularly scheduled zoning meeting on Tuesday, March 20, 2007. Mr. Mayagreed to place the matter on the agenda.
In response to Mr. Bryant, Commissioner Stone stated the issue had to bepresented before the Board for consideration. Mr. May questioned whether the Boardwished to consider a sample Developer’s Agreement. Commissioner Kesselring agreed,noting a conceptual plan should also be presented. Chairman McClain advised that theDeveloper’s Agreement remained with the property and suggested that the applicant andtheir representatives work with Mr. May.
Utilities/Zoning - (14.D.) - 2. - (Z. C. 061208Z) - Steve Gray, NE 1st Avenue, attorneyrepresenting Ecclestone Signature Homes of Marion, LLC, appeared as directed to reviewthe utility plan in relation to a Zoning Change from A-1 (General Agriculture) to PUD(Planned Unit Development) for a residential development, on Parcel Nos. 48366-000-00,48367-000-00 & 47659-000-00. (Ed. Note: This matter was previously discussed onTuesday, December 19, 2006.)
Mr. Gray advised that the lift station was driven by the topography and would beinstalled in the lowest location. He stated he had met with Troy Adkins, who was present.Mr. Gray presented a copy of a letter dated February 15, 2007, which was signed by Mr.Adkins and resolved his concerns. He advised that at the time of construction of the waterdistribution center within the Utopia project a 2-inch water line system would be stubbedto Mr. Adkins property and to make it easier for him to connect into the central sewer, thelift station would be located relatively close to the northeast corner of the Adkins property.Mr. Gray noted it would be a very large force main from the lift station going back toStonecrest. He stated to make it easier for Mr. Adkins when the lift station is constructed
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 903
a dry line/gravity line would be installed from the lift station to two feet into the Adkinsproperty. Mr. Gray noted once construction was completed the lift station would betransferred to the County for ownership and operation. He advised that all was confirmedin writing and resolved Mr. Adkins issues, which would allow moving forward on the design,noting the Utilities Department also approved.
In response to Chairman McClain, Mr. Adkins (from his seat in the audience)advised that he approved.
Commissioner Payton noted this was a continuation from December 19, 2006 andas such public comment had been taken.
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,to approve the utility plan for the Utopia project. Chairman McClain advised that publiccomment had already been heard. Commissioner Kesselring noted the only issue waswhere the lift station would be located. In response to Chairman McClain, Site PlannerMartsolf advised that the same individuals were noticed as were previously noticed for theSpecial Use Permit for water. Mr. May noted that staff was directed to re-advertise.Chairman McClain advised that public comment would be heard. It was the generalconsensus of the Board to concur.
Commissioner Payton out at 4:15 p.m.Commissioner Kesselring noted the only issue being discussed was the utility plan.
Chairman McClain advised that discussion was in regard to the utility plan and the layout,noting the land use (which was already approved) was not an issue, therefore commentswould be limited to the water and sewer portion of the property.
After brief discussion with several citizens it was determined that the proposal wouldnot affect their property and as such they declined to comment.
Commissioner Payton returned at 4:17 p.m.Dorothy Hull, SE Highway 42, advised that she had a well and questioned if nearby
residents would be affected by the construction of the water system. Mr. May advised thatthe water would be provided from the Stonecrest plant and a well was not being drilled nearMs. Hull. Mr. Gray advised that in addition to the lift station a regional water plant locatedin the north end of the project would be constructed, which the County would own. Henoted it would be a deep well and had gone through an extensive permitting process. Mr.Gray advised that there would be no processing of wastewater near Ms. Hull, but rather toa lift station that would pump and be processed at the Stonecrest facility.
In response to Chairman McClain, Commissioner Payton advised that a motion waspreviously made, but no vote was taken as it was determined public comment would beheard. Chairman McClain advised that another motion was needed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Fitos, seconded by Commissioner Kesselring,to approve the utility plan for the Eccleston PUD/Utopia project. The motion wasunanimously approved by the Board.
Ordinances/Zoning - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Postingof Notices received from Zoning Director Michael May and Deputy Clerk Bonvissutoregarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting.
Upon motion of Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Stone, theBoard adopted Ordinance 07-05 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant topetitions heard earlier in the public hearing, and entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFMARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL
February 20, 2007
Page 904, Book I
USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THEOFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
There was a recess at 4:21 p.m.The meeting reconvened at 4:27 p.m. with all members present. Chairman McClain
advised that the regular Board of County Commission meeting would now resume.
Subdivisions - (7.G.) - County Attorney Thomas L. Wright advised that the requestto reject the offer by Southland Investments, LLC to donate a subdivision lot located on SE140th Terrace on an unpaved road in Ocklawaha was withdrawn.
Subdivisions - (8.A.) - County Administrator Howard presented the followingrecommendation from Planning Director/Development Review Committee (DRC) ChairmanDwight Ganoe in regard to execution of the final plat for Irish Acres:
Description/Background: The Development Review Committee has approved theFinal Plat and recommends the Board authorize execution of the Final Plat by theChairman. Budget Impact: N/A.Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of the Final Plat for Irish Acresby the Chairman. A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by Commissioner
Kesselring, to authorize execution of the Final Plat of Irish Acres. The motion wasunanimously approved by the Board.
Contracts & Agreements/Subdivisions - (8.B.) - County Administrator Howardpresented the following recommendation from County Engineer Mounir Bouyounesrequesting execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Irrevocable Letterof Credit granting a waiver of Land Development Code (LDC) section 8.2.3.C(3)(a)(i) forIrish Acres:
Description/Background: The County Attorney has reviewed and approved theImprovement Agreement with Letter of Credit in the amount of $126,468.35. Thisagreement is for the construction of roads and drainage within the above mentionedsubdivision and the estimate is for work remaining. Transportation has inspectedand verified the construction to date. This inspection is not an approval ofconstruction and does not supersede the requirements set forth in the LDC forcompletion. This subdivision is located in northwest Marion County. The project isapproximately 220 lots and 4.66 miles of paved road.Budget Impact: N/A.Recommended Action: Motion to approve the attached Improvement Agreementand authorize Chairman and Clerk to execute. To grant a waiver to the requirementsset forth in the Land Development Code section 8.2.3 C (3) (a) (i) with regard toImprovement Agreement estimate of costs and authorize Chairman and Clerk toexecute.Commissioner Payton questioned whether the request was in regard to the language
of the Letter of Credit. County Engineer Mounir Bouyounes advised that it was the partialImprovement Agreement. In response to Commissioner Payton, Mr. Bouyounes advisedthat it was appropriate.
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 905
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by CommissionerKesselring, to authorize execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement withIrrevocable Letter of Credit granting LDC waiver of Section 8.2.3.C(3)(a)(i) for Irish Acres.The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Subdivisions - (8.C.) - County Administrator Howard presented the followingrecommendation from Planning Director/DRC Chairman Ganoe in regard to execution ofthe final plat for Summercrest:
Description/Background: The Development Review Committee has approved theFinal Plat and recommends the Board authorize execution of the Final Plat by theChairman. Budget Impact: N/A.Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of the Final Plat forSummercrest by the Chairman. Mr. Bouyounes advised that the final plat and Improvement Agreement for
Stonecrest was for the entire subdivision, noting the Letter of Credit was for all of theimprovements. Commissioner Payton stated his questions had been answeredsatisfactorily in regard to the procedures. Chairman McClain questioned whether the Bankcharged a fee when a Bond was obtained. Harvey Vandeven, SE 11th Place, advised thatthe Bank charged 1% of the Bond which was required to be paid up front regardless of theBoard’s decision.
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by CommissionerKesselring, to authorize execution of the Final Plat of Summercrest. The motion wasunanimously approved by the Board.
Contracts & Agreements/Subdivisions - (8.D.) - County Administrator Howardpresented the following recommendation from County Engineer Bouyounes requestingexecution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Irrevocable Letter of Credit forSummercrest:
Description/Background: The County Attorney has reviewed and approved theImprovement Agreement with Letter of Credit in the amount of $4,214,359.53. Thisagreement is for the construction of roads and drainage within the above mentionedsubdivision. This subdivision is located in southeast Marion County. The project isapproximately 683 lots and 8.27 miles of paved road.Budget Impact: N/A.Recommended Action: Motion to approve the attached Improvement Agreementand authorize Chairman and Clerk to execute.A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner
Stone, to authorize execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with IrrevocableLetter of Credit for Summercrest. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Comprehensive Plan/Roads, Miscellaneous/Transportation - (8.E.) - CountyAdministrator Howard presented the following recommendation from Planning DirectorGanoe regarding acceptance of the SR 326 Corridor Study Area Master Plan andrecommendations:
Description/Background: At a public workshop last November, staff presented to theBoard a draft of the SR 326 Corridor Study Area Recommended Master Plan. Based
February 20, 2007
Page 906, Book I
on comments made at the workshop, minor revisions have been made and staff isnow recommending that the Board accept the recommended plan as revised. Inaddition to the recommendations included within the Master Plan, attached is a listof additional general recommendations (Attachment 1). Also, although notspecifically discussed in the Master Plan, staff is recommending that the Boardauthorize staff to propose a comprehensive plan text amendment to consider raisingthe Level of Service (LOS) Standard for portions of the following roads located withinthe Study Area and lying north of SR 326: West Anthony Road; NE 58th Avenue, NE97th Street Road and NE 90th Street Road. The existing LOS for these roadwaysegments is LOS “D” (LOS capacity of 13,800 AADT). All of the subject roads havea current traffic count of less than 4000 (see Attachment 2). Staff recommendationwould be to consider raising the LOS on those specific portions to a LOS “C” (LOScapacity of 8600 AADT). This recommendation is being made based onconsideration of various factors, including the purchase of the Avatar property by theState as well as the residential land use densities anticipated under the master planfor the areas within the vicinity of these roadways (Low Density Residential, VeryLow Density Residential and Rural Lands). The proposed LOS revisions would beincluded with the proposed 2007 text amendment to revised various roadway LOSin the NW quadrant of the County as previously directed by the Board.Budget Impact: None.Recommended Action: 1. Motion to accept the staff recommended map (Map 5) as the SR 326
Corridor Study Area Master Plan and approve the staff recommendationscontained within the plan along with the attached additionalrecommendations (Attachment 1).
2. Motion to authorize staff to propose as a 2007 Text Amendment to theComprehensive Plan, raising the LOS for those roads as identified inAttachment 2.
Commissioner Kesselring recommended the matter be tabled to the next regularmeeting in light of comments made earlier by Mr. Marwick.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring to table the matter to the nextregular meeting for further discussion. Commissioner Payton suggested it be withdrawninstead. Mr. Howard agreed to place the matter on the next regularly scheduled Boardmeeting.
In response to Chairman McClain, Mr. Ganoe advised that adjustment was madedue to the Avatar purchase. It was the general consensus of the Board to withdraw thematter to Tuesday, March 6, 2007.
Utilities - (Walk-on) - Chairman McClain addressed the following recommendationfrom Utilities Director Andrew Neff requesting to advertise a public hearing to consider anexchange of real property with 103rd Street Partners:
Description/Background: Marion County is trading an abandoned wastewatertreatment plant site on 103rd Street for a 75 ft. wide utility easement across theproperty owned by 103rd Street Partners.This utility easement will allow the SR 200 Force Main to continue into Oak Runalong the SW 80th Avenue alignment on the south side of 103rd Street. The forcemain project is currently out to bid with bid opening scheduled for February 27th. We
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 907
are required to advertise two weeks prior to the public hearing. We have evaluatedthe appraisal for this swap and determined that the land values are equivalent.Budget Impact: N/A.Recommended Action: Motion to establish public hearing date of March 6, 2007 at10:00 AM to receive public comment and approve a motion to authorize theChairman to approve the above request.A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,
to advertise a public hearing on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. to consider anexchange of real property with 103rd Street Partners. The motion was unanimouslyapproved by the Board.
Chairman McClain noted the recommended action was to hold a public hearing onMarch 6, 2007, however the attached Resolution was dated March 20, 2007.
Commissioners - (11.A. - C.) - Upon motion of Commissioner Kesselring, secondedby Commissioner Payton, the Board approved out-of-County travel and expenses for thoseCommissioners to attend the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) 2007 Legislative Dayin Tallahassee on Wednesday, March 28, 2007; (item B) approve Chairman McClain’srequest to travel to Washington, D.C. from March 7 through 10, 2007 to meet with StateLegislators; and (item C) approved out-of County travel and expenses for thoseCommissioners attending Marion County/Ocala Day in Tallahassee on Tuesday, March 13,2007.
Advisory Committees/Districts - (11.D.) - Chairman McClain referred to the followingrecommendation from MSTU/Assessment Director Myra Tedder in regard to establishingPolicy or Standard for selection of Advisory Board members elected by a general electionballot:
Description/Background: Historically if an advisory board member is chosen byballot during a General Election ballot and an existing member resigns prior to theend of his or her term, the person receiving the next most votes on the ballot hasbeen recommended for appointment to the advisory board by agenda item. If thereare no more nominees on the ballot, the vacancy is advertised in the newspaper andapplications are accepted.Recently an advisory board member (Deanna Collins) of the Silver Springs ShoresTax Advisory Council resigned before the end of her term. Several names appearedon the November general election ballot to fill two (2) open positions on the taxadvisory board. The following represents the results of the election ballot:
Mary L. Black 967 votes *Ken Robb 573 votes *Inga Carbone 538 votesCharlotte Undercoffer 499 votesMerrill Oberg 294 votesGuenther Selig 205 votesCay Sidwell 198 votes
* The appointments of Mary Black and Ken Robb were ratified by the Board ofCounty Commissioners in December of 2006.As noted above, Ingaborg Carbone received the third most votes on the ballot andI requested that she be considered for appointment to fulfill Ms. Collins’ place.
February 20, 2007
Page 908, Book I
However, there is some concern on the part of the Commission staff to requestappointment of a replacement to fulfill the balance of Ms. Collins’ term in lieu ofadvertising the open position and accepting applications. Therefore, I was requestedto bring this matter to the Commissioners’ attention for discussion and considerationto set a policy or standard that can be utilized to appoint advisory board membersin MSTU areas where advisory board members are selected by ballot duringGeneral Elections.Currently there are only two (2) MSTU areas that use the General Election ballotmethod and those areas are: Rainbow Lakes Estates and Silver Springs Shores.Budget Impact: None.Recommended Action: Set policy or standard that can be used by staff regardingappointment of advisory board members selected by a General Election ballot.Commissioner Kesselring noted the only two advisory committees to appoint
members by ballot were: 1) Silver Springs Shores Special Tax District Advisory Council and2) Rainbow Lakes Estates Municipal Service District (RLE MSD) Advisory Council. Headvised that it had always been his understanding that the next person with the most votesthrough the election process would be chosen and would prefer to continue that processwhich would provide some validation.
Chairman McClain noted Marlene Perez-Maldonado was concerned and requestedsome type of policy or procedure to be established. He advised that he was fine with theelection process, but wanted to bring it to the Boards attention. Commissioner Paytonquestioned whether that would be just until the next election opportunity. CommissionerKesselring stated the individual would be appointed to serve out the unexpired term of thevacancy.
Phyllis Kelly, Emerald Court, Chairman of the Silver Springs Shores Special TaxDistrict Advisory Council, stated it was the Council’s request that the Board adopt therecommended action for this term as well as any future terms. She suggested that theBoard consider setting as the standard. Ms. Kelly stated she hoped the interest to servethe community continued.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,that in the event of a vacancy on an Advisory Board which was elected by the generalelection ballot process the individual receiving the most votes would be appointed to serveout the remaining unexpired term of the vacancy. Commissioner Stone stated thatassumed that the next person with the most votes still wanted to serve. The motion wasunanimously approved by the Board.
Commissioner Kesselring noted the process had worked reasonably well in SilverSprings Shores, and suggested the option may be explored for the Marion Oaks area(which was in Commissioner Payton’s District). Commissioner Payton agreed, noting whathe thought and they thought may be two different issues. Commissioner Kesselring statedif there were individuals who were in charge of making recommendations and budgets,having the validation of the election process was appropriate to the community and mayaddress some of the concerns. Commissioner Payton advised that he and Ms. Tedderwould meet with leaders in the Marion Oaks area and report back to the Board.
In response to Ms. Kelly, Commissioner Payton advised that Silver Springs ShoresSpecial Tax District Advisory Council was the only one that was conducted in that manner,other than RLE MSD, which was a special taxing unit and completely different.
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 909
Garbage/Landfills - (11.E.) - Upon motion of Commissioner Kesselring, secondedby Commissioner Payton, the Board scheduled a workshop on Wednesday, March 21,2007 at 9:00 a.m. to discuss solid waste issues.
Utilities - (11.F.) - Upon motion of Commissioner Payton, seconded byCommissioner Kesselring, the Board scheduled a workshop on Thursday, March 8, 2007to review the Utilities Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Rates and Charge Studyrecommendations to immediately follow the 9:00 a.m. Springs Protection workshop.
(Ed. Note: This item was discussed again later in the meeting.)
Garbage/Landfills - (11.G.) - Upon motion of Commissioner Kesselring, secondedby Commissioner Stone, the Board scheduled a public hearing on Tuesday, March 20,2007 at 10:00 a.m. to consider a request for a Commercial and Residential CollectionService Franchise by Job Site Services, Inc.
Contracts & Agreements/County Planning/Municipalities/Schools - (11.H.) - Uponmotion of Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Stone, the Board agreedto piggyback a workshop on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 to discuss draft revisions to theInterlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning following the 9:00 a.m. Solid Wasteworkshop.
Commissioners/Projects & Programs - (12.E.) - Commissioner Fitos advised thatshe was appointed to serve as liaison for the Board on the Citrus Levy Marion RegionalWorkforce Development Board (CLMRWDB). She noted ratification of the Eighth Amendedand Restated Agreement to Establish the CLMRWDB was requested.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerPayton, to ratify execution of the Agreement by Commissioner Fitos. The motion wasunanimously approved by the Board.
Commissioner Fitos advised that she was elected Chairman of the CLMRWDB.
Libraries - (12.B.) - Commissioner Kesselring advised that he submitted informationin regard to a parcel in the Forest Corners area located directly south of the existing ForestPublic Library, Fire Station and Sheriff’s Office. He stated there had been some discussionas to possibly purchasing the site, noting discussion with the owners was also held.Commissioner Kesselring requested Board approval to move forward with an appraisal inorder to obtain a concrete number for negotiation purposes.
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,to approve the appraisal of the 11.2 acre parcel immediately adjacent to the County ownedproperty.
Commissioner Fitos noted she had toured the property and wholeheartedly agreedwith the recommendation. Commissioner Stone noted concern with purchasing theproperty. Commissioner Kesselring advised that one of the reasons for considering theproperty was the fact that the Tax Collector leased property in the shopping center to thenorth and past discussions in regard to consolidating services. He noted the FireDepartment had also discussed expanding its facility. Commissioner Kesselring advisedthat should the County have a bonafide opportunity to purchase the property, it would comeback with a full concept plan and how all the different governmental agencies may
February 20, 2007
Page 910, Book I
coordinate together.The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Subdivisions/Zoning - (12.C.) - A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring toeliminate family division. Commissioner Kesselring advised that its usage was escalatingrapidly as the loop hole was discovered. In response to Commissioner Kesselring, Mr. Mayadvised that family division had been modified six times over the last years. He advised thatanother option was addressed through the Special Use Permit process. CommissionerKesselring noted public comment would be permitted and would allow the Board anopportunity to determine a legitimate request or another alternative. Commissioner Stoneadvised that he could support that idea. The motion failed due to lack of a second.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerStone, to direct staff to once again review and change the process to require a Special UsePermit, which would require Board approval and a public hearing.
Commissioner Payton stated he may want to ask to amend the motion to avoid a runon family division between now and the time further action was taken, that a moratoriumbe placed on any family division requests. Commissioner Kesselring agreed to amend hismotion to include that a moratorium be placed on all family division requests, effectiveimmediately.
Mr. Ganoe questioned plat vacations in regard to that purpose and whether theBoard desired to have a policy to not process plat vacations. Commissioner Kesselringcommented on the two plat vacations heard earlier. Mr. Ganoe noted a fee was paid andhe preferred that requests not be made if they were going to be denied. CommissionerPayton stated until it was defined, plat vacations would be included.
Mr. May advised he was unsure if any family divisions were being processed today.It was the general consensus of the Board that anything in the works (before midnight)could be processed.
The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Contracts & Agreements/Purchasing/Resolutions/Utilities - (12.D.) - (Ed Note: alsoreconsidered Consent agenda item 6.D.11. and Clerk item 5.B.8.) - CommissionerKesselring advised that background information was presented in the agenda in relationto the clean water assessment, noting the fee was $15. He advised that the County wasamong the lowest amount, noting most other areas doubled what Marion County charged.Commissioner Kesselring noted it related back to what the Board had addressed in regardto utility rates and being able to install central water and sewer in undevelopedsubdivisions. He stated it was a potential source of income or revenue to be able to mitigatethe impact on existing residents in those areas.
Commissioner Kesselring stated just to provide an idea he had requested Mr. Neffto furnish numbers of the additional cost to Oak Run and Stonecrest Water TreatmentPlants being constructed to increase the treatment capabilities. He noted the cost wasabove $2,000,000 over a four year period. Commissioner Kesselring questioned whetherit was fair to put the additional costs on the utility customers when it was a largerCountywide issue. He questioned whether there was any sentiment to utilize the cleanwater assessment to further realize those goals.
Commissioner Payton advised that he was not on the Board when the assessmentwas implemented, but was on the Board in time to catch the wrath of the public. He stated
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 911
he did not remember anything being as contentious as the $15 clean water assessment.Commissioner Kesselring stated it was just a matter of what was potentially good publicpolicy. Mr. Wright advised that the Board was treading on fragile ground as far as legalitiesto using the stormwater assessment for utilities. He noted problems resulted from usingmoney from assessments in areas where they do not have a direct special benefit, notingpreliminary discussions were held with Chris Traber, bond counsel, who agreed that theremust be a specific benefit or else it was an illegal tax.
Commissioner Kesselring stated the Legal Department should be able to show theconnection between treating nitrates in County Utility systems and the health of the Springswhere plenty of water studies were conducted to show that connection. Mr. Wright notedthere were legal issues involved, but would review and study it in-depth. He stated therewas no question there was a benefit, but a direct special benefit was needed.Commissioner Kesselring stated he wanted to determine if this was a potential avenue thatthe Board desired to explore.
Commissioner Stone noted there was much confusion about the cleanwater/stormwater assessment name and how that money could be used. He stated if theintent was to schedule a workshop, he would agree, but was not willing to take actiontoday. Commissioner Kesselring questioned whether there was a consensus to pursue aworkshop. Commissioner Fitos stated a workshop would be beneficial in terms of exploringwhat could and could not be done in regard to alternatives. She commented on the OrangeBlossom Hills issue. Commissioner Payton stated the Board was agreeing to schedule aworkshop. He suggested that the Legal Department be directed to review the matter andStormwater Engineer Tracy Straub advise how those funds were being used now, how theycould be utilized and the goal. Mr. Wright agreed to review the matter. Chairman McClainadvised that it was the general consensus of the Board to schedule a workshop to discussstormwater.
Commissioner Kesselring noted that a workshop was scheduled earlier on March1, 2007 to discuss Orange Blossom Hills and suggested that the stormwater workshop beheld on that same date at 8:00 a.m.
Chairman McClain advised there was hesitation on behalf of the Utilities in regardto being prepared by March 1, 2007, noting Utilities Director Neff’s plate was full.Commissioner Kesselring stated his thought was to determine whether or not to moveforward with the project based on the financial impact. He noted residents of OrangeBlossom Hills needed the information as soon as possible. Chairman McClain advised thatthe two were tied together and this workshop needed to be by itself.
Mr. Howard questioned the objective of Orange Blossom Hills and whether it wasto see if the costs could be reduced to the 110 homeowners. Chairman McClain advisedthat was part of it, but was more of a policy decision as whatever the County did therewould have to be done everywhere, which led to how the project would be funded.Commissioner Kesselring stated it was also to determine whether or not to move forwardon the project and provide staff with direction. Mr. Neff noted there were a number of issueswith regard to Orange Blossom Hills, including funding issues to be discussed. Hequestioned whether it would be acceptable to provide dates for Board consideration at thenext meeting to review the options. Commissioner Kesselring noted the first date wasestablished due to the road improvement project.
Chairman McClain questioned whether Mr. Neff could provide a synopsis/time lineon March 1, 2007 rather than holding a workshop. Mr. Neff agreed. It was the general
February 20, 2007
Page 912, Book I
consensus of the Board to agree. Commissioner Kesselring clarified that it would basicallybe a new workshop regarding Orange Blossom Hills, clean water issues and overall utilityrates. Mr. Neff advised that the utility rates would still be discussed on March 1, 2007.Commissioner Payton stated the utility rates should be addressed in its own context. Mr.Neff clarified that the first order of business of the utility rate discussion would be to fix whatwas currently existing, noting subsequent discussions would be needed regarding the rateissue. Chairman McClain agreed that the utilities needed to be reviewed from top to bottomand big policy decisions should be made in regard to operation.
Chairman McClain advised that the utility rates workshop would be held onThursday, March 8, 2007 and on March 1, 2007 the Utilities Director would present a timeline for future workshop regarding the Orange Blossom Hills issue, including discussion ofusing clean water funds, funding in general and different options. Chairman McClainadvised that he would not be available on March 8, 2007, but did want to be present for theutility rate workshop. Commissioner Kesselring suggested possible workshop dates bepresented at the next regular meeting. Commissioner Stone noted that typically the Boardtried not to schedule a workshop on the same day as a regular meeting, but suggested thatthe utility rate workshop be held in the afternoon on Tuesday, March 6, 2007.
Chairman McClain recommended that the workshop be moved from Thursday,March 8, 2007 to Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the utility rates. Inresponse to Chairman McClain, Mr. Neff requested clarification that on March 1st the onlything he was presenting at that time was the time line for future discussion in regard to allof the other issues. Chairman McClain agreed that was correct.
Mr. Neff commented on the Orange Blossom Hills matter that was deferred earlieruntil the workshop, which is now going to be determined later, and questioned whetherthere would be any objection to him placing the issue back on the agenda for the nextmeeting. He noted it was a clean-up action for prior work. Commissioner Stone questionedwhether Mr. Hartman had preformed all of the work for the $25,000. Mr. Neff advised workwas not yet completed, but was initiated as part of the whole process and provided theScope of Work and funding, noting services would be needed to discuss some of theoptions at the upcoming meeting. He stated he would like to bring the matter back at thenext regular meeting for the Board to reconsider.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,to approve Consent agenda item 6.D.11. to execute contract with Hartman Consulting &Design for the Orange Blossom Hills Feasibility Assessment and Clerk item 5.B.8. to adoptBudget Amendment Resolution 07-R-76 transferring $25,000 within the Marion CountyUtilities Fund. Mr. Wright noted the matter was tabled earlier and questioned whether it wasbeing taken off the table in order to make a motion. It was the general consensus of theBoard to agree. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
Commissioners/Legislation - Chairman McClain advised that he would be going toWashington, DC in a couple of weeks and commented on the update received from Alcalde& Fay, Lobbyists, noting the number one priority was Sharpes Ferry Bridge. Mr. Howardadvised that it was the number one priority of the Transportation Planning Organization(TPO).
Chairman McClain questioned what “Law Enforcement Technology” included. Mr.Howard advised that he was not exactly sure. Chairman McClain advised that the listneeded to be changed as the Silver Springs Pollution Abatement Program was listed
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 913
further down. Mr. Howard advised that the list was a rough draft, noting Deputy CountyAdministrator Gisela Salas was working with the Lobbyist to address those issues.
Chairman McClain noted the Oak Run Regional Reuse Reclaimed Water Projectwas on the bottom of the list of priorities while the legislative priorities presented toTallahassee listed it at the top. Commissioner Kesselring questioned whether it was dueto funding opportunities. He agreed to provide the Chairman with the authority to establishpriorities. Chairman McClain noted his disappointment that no funds had been received bythe County from Washington, DC. Mr. Howard advised that there was no budget this yearand stated the most important water issue should be listed first as water projects were anissue everywhere.
Commissioner Stone commented on the letter from Mr. Davenport in regard tomeeting with Senator Martinez. He suggested that Chairman McClain use his owndiscretion at that point, noting the same message given to Senator Martinez’s office inFlorida should be the same as that given in Washington, DC.
Projects & Programs - Commissioner Payton provided background information,noting last Fall the specter of E-One (E-1) leaving Marion County was brought to theBoards attention. The County was asked to become involved in the negotiation process todetermine what, if any, incentives could be offered to keep E-1 in the area. He noted heserved on the negotiation team as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners andChairman McClain asked that he continue as the Boards liaison. Commissioner Paytonadvised that he had served in concert with the County Administrator, Clerk of the Court andFinance Director John Garri. He noted the issue had become a very controversial andpolarized discussion in the community.
Commissioner Payton advised that within the last month the City of Ocala broughtthe specter of incentive up, which failed by a vote of 2-2, with Councilman Owen abstainingand citing a potential conflict of interest. He noted Councilman Owen was seeking aresponse from the Attorney General in regard to the possible conflict. CommissionerPayton advised that there was a tremendous public outcry, mainly by employees of E-1,therefore Councilman Ruse moved for reconsideration. The Ocala City Council agreed atthat time to move it to the Economic Improvement Fund (EIF) Committee, which was agroup of local bankers and others appointed by the City to evaluate the viability of anycompany to determine how long it would take to recover incentives offered. He stated theCity would take action upon receipt of the EIF report, noting in the meantime a meeting washeld with Mr. Gustafson, President of E-1. Commissioner Payton advised that Mr.Gustafson contacted him and declared the incentives offered by the City and County wereacceptable and he would not ask for more from either, however, he was asking the Stateof Florida for more. He advised that the number settled on was an incentive package worthabout $25.5 million, with $9,000,000 from the City and County. Commissioner Paytonstated the County’s portion of the incentive would consist of roughly $500,000 in ImpactFee Credits for road construction in the first year and $400,000 cash each year for theremaining term of the commitment providing that E-1 maintain a performance level. Headvised that he informed Mr. Gustafson that the matter was not scheduled for discussionon today’s agenda, as the Board was awaiting the EIF Report.
Commissioner Payton advised that Mr. Gustafson commented on conversations withEnterprise Florida and the Governor wherein he noted he felt they were getting close to adeal and requested that someone make a commitment. He stated Mr. Gustafson implored
February 20, 2007
Page 914, Book I
him to bring the matter before the Board to either vote in favor of or against the incentives.Commissioner Payton advised that he contacted the County Administrator to determine thebest public policy, noting that from a personal perspective he did not like the deal, but asa public servant it was good public policy as it was in the best interest of the County atlarge. He noted it would not be a popular public policy in some areas. CommissionerPayton advised it was time for the County to advise whether it would or would notparticipate, noting there were many unanswered questions and any resolution made todaywould be subject to the EIF Report, the City’s participation and the State’s involvement. Hewas aware that other State’s were making rich offers to E-1, noting the EIF and EnterpriseFlorida must see the offers before codifying deals.
A motion was made by Commissioner Payton, seconded by Commissioner Stonefor discussion purposes, to approve participation in the incentive to a maximum of $4.5million to retain E-1 and based on performance benchmarks over a ten year period, subjectto the City and State contributions.
Commissioner Stone stated he had many questions and noted the Ocala CityCouncil scheduled a public hearing on its agenda, which the County had not done. Henoted concern with bringing the issue forward without being publicly placed on the agendafor discussion. Commissioner Stone advised that the more he researched the matter themore he questioned the authority of the Board to provide the incentives and was unsurewhere the money would come from, as a source of revenue would need to be identified.He noted concern with providing cash for any company to do as it pleased. CommissionerStone advised that E-1 was a major factor of the County’s economy and would do what hecould to encourage them to stay other than a blank check. He noted concern withmonitoring the performance benchmarks or with the company leaving in the event it couldnot meet those benchmarks. Commissioner Stone questioned why E-1 did not come to theCounty before seeking out-of-State offers if it was truly interested in remaining in MarionCounty. Commissioner Payton advised as near as he could ascertain the information asstated by Commissioner Stone was fairly accurate, noting E-1 advised the EDC of otherconcessions. EDC advised that it would take $12 million to $13 million to keep E-1, whichwas later amended to $13.5 million. Commissioner Payton advised that the EDC againadvised that $13.5 million was deficient.
Commissioner Payton stated at that point the negotiation team determined that it nolonger wished to negotiate as a third party. He advised that a meeting was held with Mr.Gustafson, who advised that it was between the County, Enterprise Florida and the City ofOcala, noting $20 million from the State was required as that was the offer from otherStates, however the preference was to remain in Marion County due to the trainedworkforce and relocation costs. Commissioner Payton stated Enterprise Florida advisedthat it could not pay an appropriation of more than what was offered, which was around$11.5 million and to provide more would probably require a special act of the FloridaLegislature. He stated other individuals who had not been party to the negotiations becameinvolved and were able to get the Governor to agree to come up with more money,however it would not reach the $20,000,000 requested.
Commissioner Payton advised that the total available as of this conversation was$26.5 million. He noted the general consensus of the negotiation team was that there wasno more funds available. Commissioner Payton stated he had no intention of bringing thematter before the Board without the EIF Report but was requested to do so by a third partyand Mr. Gustafson. He stated the desire of the negotiation committee was to reach a
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 915
consensus and present to the respective governing bodies. Commissioner Payton stated it was his opinion that if not approved E-1 would leave
and it would be a major blow to the economy of Marion County. Commissioner Stonequestioned the unintended consequences and concern with requests by others to follow,noting E-1 should have planned for expansion years ago. He stated it was not a deal hewanted to support.
Chairman McClain questioned whether the Board was comfortable making adecision tonight. Commissioner Kesselring stated he was not comfortable making thedecision today as the citizens were owed an opportunity to provide public comment. Henoted it was worthwhile to explain to the public how the funds would be expended, whatwas expected in return for the money and what assurances the County had that E-1 wouldmeet those compliance benchmarks. Commissioner Kesselring stated the issues were notcommunicated very well to the public, who assumed the County was going to write E-1 a$13.5 million cheque. He advised that the $500,000 impact fee credit would come alongwith a $2,000,000 road that would be constructed, while the $400,000 that the Countywould provide annually (subject to compliance benchmarks) would result in an additional$200,000 plus in ad valorem taxes as a result of the new plant E-1 would construct.Commissioner Kesselring stated the public was owed an explanation of exactly what washappening and why it was a good deal. He stated E-1 should be the one coming before theBoard asking for public funds.
Commissioner Fitos agreed that the County showed good faith effort in negotiationsand the longer the matter was delayed the worse the issue became, noting public sentimentchanged daily. She stated E-1 could be told that the Board discussed the matter, but itwould be a disservice to the citizens to make a recommendation without public commenteven though this was a pubic forum. Commissioner Fitos suggested a special publichearing be scheduled as soon as feasibly possible to consider the informationCommissioner Payton presented earlier in relation to providing financial incentives to E-1.
Commissioner Payton stated given the consensus, he would withdraw his motion.Commissioner Stone also withdrew his second.
Chairman McClain stated he had never seen an eleventh hour decision be goodpublic policy. He stated there was no established policy whereby the Board provided thistype of incentive as it was new ground. Chairman McClain stated as a businessman hepreferred to know the results of the EIF Report, noting he would never make a decisionabout investing $4.5 million without knowing the strengths of a company. He advised thathis preference would be to partner with the City and create a Commerce Park and installthe infrastructure to attract several companies as opposed to retaining one company.Chairman McClain stated he was not comfortable with the incentives and did not know ifit would be any better in a public venue.
Commissioner Payton questioned whether the County could approve the incentivepackage. Chairman McClain stated he did not believe he could approve cash.Commissioner Payton stated if the County could not get there it may as well say it couldnot, noting he had to be the advocate as he served on the negotiation team and it wouldbe unethical for him not to have negotiated in good faith.
Commissioner Stone noted he could not get there with the Resolution as presented,but may with modifications. Commissioner Fitos agreed with Commissioner Payton andadvised that she could get there. Chairman McClain stated he could not. CommissionerKesselring stated he believed he could get there.
February 20, 2007
Page 916, Book I
Commissioner Payton advised the EIF Report would be available by Friday and itwas planned to present that report to the Board at its March 6, 2007 regular meeting. Hestated he had done as Mr. Gustafson requested, but the Board wanted to see the numbersbefore voting, which would not occur until Tuesday, March 6, 2007.
Mr. Howard addressed Commissioner Stone’s concern with other company’s comingforward with similar requests. He stated E-1 had 1,300 employees, would construct a$30,000,000 building and fill it with $19,000,000 worth of equipment to improve theirprocess. Mr. Howard noted the money the County would contribute would probably go intothe building or equipment. Commissioner Kesselring noted the conversation should be heldat the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring to schedule a public hearing onTuesday, March 6, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. to allow the County Administrative staff or the EDCto portray a complete presentation of the entire project, complete discussion of how thefunds would be expended, types of revenues coming back to the County, the businesssense associated with the incentives, along with review of the EIF Report regarding E-1,as well as a draft opinion on what type of policy would be set. He stated if the request wasapproved a policy would be needed right away. Commissioner Kesselring stated hispreference was that E-1 would present the formal request, which may have an impact onthe outcome of the vote.
Commissioner Payton stated he did not disagree, but noted a problem with thevenue if all 1,300 E-1 employees appeared and if his emails were any indication therewould be a number of citizens in opposition present. He stated the Board may want to havea different venue or establish rules of conduct. Commissioner Kesselring agreed, notingeach speaker should be permitted a very limited amount of time to voice their opinion.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stone.Chairman McClain questioned whether a business plan was presented during any
of the negotiations. Commissioner Payton stated no business plan was presented.Chairman McClain stated the company was not managed properly, noting skyrocketingcosts were associated with an inability to efficiently manufacture products. He stated a newbusiness plan should be presented. Commissioner Payton stated E-1 had a plan of whichthe details were proprietary in nature, but the general context could be shared, such as theexpanding workforce, all of which was anecdotal. He noted E-1 was a subsidiary of FederalSignal.
Commissioner Stone commented on E-1 competitor’s. In response to ChairmanMcClain, Commissioner Payton advised that Mr. Garri served as the Boards liaison on theEIF Committee.
The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.Commissioner Kesselring suggested staff determine whether the meeting could be
televised live. Ms. Salas advised she would look into the issue. Commissioner Paytonstated he would not be surprised if Channels 2, 3, 6 and other local channels were notpresent. “Action Jackson” (Jackson Koontz), Dillon Video, advised that the capability to golive was available. Commissioner Stone stated the School Board met on the same nightand it likely could not be shown live. Commissioner Kesselring stated the Commissionmeetings were generally shown at night and requested that the School Board be madeaware that the Board of County Commissioners desired that the public hearing be televisedlive and the regular meeting be shown at another time. Ms. Salas advised she wouldaddress the matter. It was the general consensus of the Board to broadcast the public
February 20, 2007
Book I, Page 917
hearing live if possible.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting thereuponadjourned at 6:15 p.m.
